There is a debate raging amongst the people of "Middle" England today. Played out at tables and other clichés around the country. The debate amongst the Middle people is identical to the debate amongst the chattering classes - down to the very last word.
'Kettle', 'Anarchist', 'Phalanx', 'Surge' - journalese now a common term of reference to the average Middle viewer of corporate news; no matter how debased the terms have become. The question that has come to dominate the debate for the chattering classes and thus the Middle is simply this: ‘do you condemn violent protest? Or don’t you?’.
The problem with this formulation is that the chattering classes have missed the point entirely. News editors typically don’t like to ask ‘why?’ questions you see, it involve too much pesky, time-consuming history. Twenty first century news is perpetually fixed on the zeitgeist of the now. The problem with the debate over the rightness or wrongness of violent protest is therfore inevitable and simple.
Violent protest is happening. It is a fact of life no more and no less than any other. The salient question then is not one of morality, but history. Anyone who saw the footage or was at the protest yesterday will know that of those involved in the violence, almost all were young, working-class men. So the obvious question should be - 'Why?'
Thatcher's children
During the eighties Britain was in the clutches of another Conservative administration. Thatcher oversaw and enacted massive and unprecedented free-market reforms that, as she well knew, would destroy the chance of a decent job for large swathes of the working class. An outsourcing of manufacturing, the destruction of native heavy industry, finacial de-regualtion, curtailments on the welfare state and a move to a so called ‘knowledge’ economy left millions facing crippling poverty of every kind.
If you are prepared to take away a person’s dreams - replacing them only with vivid nightmares - you best be prepared when they wake up. Thatcher knew this, Cameron knows it too. One only need peruse publicly available police and government literature to see that the militarization of the Metropolitan Police is progressing swiftly. The use of private security contractors at the Topshop protest last weekend tells us something too.
Austerity means poverty. People are waking up to this truth all over Europe, some later than others. According to France 24 the standard of living in Portugal after the recent sovereign debt crisis has collapsed in a way: ‘not seen since the 1930’s’. Similar stories are to be heard, in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Iceland and within the next few years Britain too. It seems obvious but it is rarely said, the outpouring of anger seen on the streets of London and around the country yesterday was not just anger over student fees or any one particular issue, it was symptomatic of growing civil unrest at the cuts agenda.
When the children and the grandchildren of those who suffered under Thatcher see corporate banks getting bailed out whilst their communities are targeted for a third round of neo-liberalism’s terrifying ‘progress’ - they get angry and violent. Why is this such a shock? First they came and took away working class jobs, decimating industry and pushing milliuons below the poverty line. Now they come back for the benefits and support mechanisms that kept those very same families fed and housed.
Whilst violence as a means of protest is not necessarily constructive, it certainly has been many times in the past. Of course, anger without direction can be dangerous and I always question the notion of attacking the tools of the State and not the State itself; even if the police do have their own violent agenda. Violence begets violence and it is inevitable that when you threaten the interests of the poorest in our society with the violent and destructive act of dismantling the welfare state, attacks on public sector workers, students and minority groups - there are inevitably going to be ramifications.
The gulf between rich and poor in England today wider than it was thirty years ago, or even a hundred. If our journalists did their jobs properly, we might be compelled to reflect on this fact more often than we do. As it stands however, most hacks seem content to chatter amongst themselves and with the confused Middle about trivialities.
What we should always remember is that these superficial moralistic debates about the rightness or wrongness of violent protest are academic and not useful for addressing the fundamental 'Why?' of the matter - why it is that people feel the need to resort to these tactics in the first place.
Hacks and politicians are always going to claim that violence is by default - mindless, nihlistic and self defeating. But for those who truely side with the disenfranchised, ignored and downtrodden in our society there is an acceptance that this is simply a tool in a limited arsenal. To quote several thousand anoynoumous demonstraters - You say cut back? We say fight back. CJL
No comments:
Post a Comment