DagSeoul: Positions, Populations, Punk, Poetics

Tory Creed: Always be willing to pay to punish. Never be willing to pay to aid.

dagNotes: Putting Your Punk Where Your Mouth Is

Kind of tired of all the progressives turned snitches in the wake of the UK riots and the endless whining from a concerned television audience about unsympathetic looters and violence that outweighs any validity the protests that ignited the riots initially possessed. Tired of it. Tired of the hypocritical aristocratic morality, the old master-slave morality, hiding within the logic justifying both points of view.

First, I’d like to suggest we talk about our everyday existence in the capitalist market in a way that resists quantifying everything. We can talk about both economic goods and social or shared goods as if they weren’t the same thing. They aren’t after all. I’d like to suggest it’s not useful to argue whether or not people are poor, whether or not the looters targeted the right businesses, whether of not the looters attacked their own people, and all the other binary-ridden claims about the looters, focused on whether what they did was good or bad. In fact, to argue these things relies on quantifying actions and individuals using capitalist tropes for valuation. It’s pointless math.

We shouldn’t be arguing about poverty as a numbers game. We should be arguing about life as an opportunity to gain and maintain happiness, a level of happiness that all of us—rich and poor—can expect to have equal access to no matter our social and economic class. The debates I’m hearing about the looting and looters are relatable to the debates about how the poor and working classes should properly behave according to their social and economic classes. If you want to talk about the poor purchasing or stealing what are traditionally thought of in pop culture as luxury goods, you’re always going to end up playing the Reagan and Thatcher game called Which Cadillac Queen is Exploiting the Welfare Program Today.

When we think of capitalist culture, we should recognize that the wealthy are thought to have earned their status in the same way that the poor have earned their poverty. I don’t know many people who want to argue that, but that is one of the unstated assumptions that makes capitalist ethics work. You’re poor because you haven’t worked hard enough, because you haven’t earned wealth. So, keep working and keep quiet. Such notions ignore social realities by design. And we should resist using any rhetoric and logic that springs from such a principle regulating wealth and happiness.

If we consider that the market regulates economic goods and the government regulates shared goods, then we have a better chance of examining things like inequality among social and economic classes without burdening the poor with unearned criticism because of their unearned poverty or liberating the wealthy from critique because of their unearned ambition. In addition, if we look at shared goods, we can recognize rather quickly that the poor and working classes are much more heavily regulated and surveilled than the wealthy, than even the middle classes.

At any rate, I’m an aging punk and since the riots have had one song on my mind more than others. And since we’re addressing the UK riots, I think we should focus on poverty and working class culture there and the dole, their welfare system. Listen to Cock Sparrer’s song “Working”. I’ll post the lyrics as well.

I been working all day for me mate on the site
Running around like a blue arsed fly
I been working
And I been working all day for me mate

Every bleeding minute I been on the go
Up and down the ladder like a fiddler’s elbow
I been working
I been working all day for me mate

[Chorus]
Wait for tomorrow at half past ten
When I sign on, but until then
I’ll be working
I’ll be working all day for me mate

Ain’t got no cards, don’t pay no tax
For a score in me hand I’ll be breaking me back
I been working
And I been working all day for me mate
Call me a crook, call me bent
But I need more than food and rent
I been working
And I been working all day for me mate

[Chorus]

They try to follow me every day
I give ‘em the slip and I’m on my way
None of the other blokes thinks it’s wrong
‘Coz every one of ‘em’s signing on

[Chorus]

They try to follow me every day
I give ‘em the slip and I’m on my way
None of the other blokes thinks it’s wrong
‘Coz every one of ‘em’s signing on

[Chorus]

The benefit boys are out of touch
What they don’t know won’t hurt ‘em much
I been working
And I been working all day for me mate

If I’m caught I’ll go down for a month or three
But they’ll still Be paying out looking after me
I been working
And I been working all day for me mate

[Chorus]

In the song, we’re sung a story about a guy who’s stealing from the state. In popular discourse, people might say that the singer is stealing from the people, the taxpayers, because he’s on the dole and working for cash under the table. And when we talk about stealing in aristocratic culture, we simply use utilitarian mathematics to arrive at the solution that stealing is bad for us, as a totality, that it brings about more pain than is necessary and should be avoided. Furthermore, if it isn’t avoided, it should be corrected. In other words, theft is considered an unreasonable act. On the other hand, the theft in this song does make the singer rather happy. His pleasure is moderated, though, by the work and knowledge that he could be caught.

The singer has a reason for his theft. Why does he work for his mate while he’s on the dole? As he puts it, “Call me a crook, call me bent, but I need more than food and rent.”  The song provides a cultural critique for its listener while thumbing its nose at the establishment. An argument is proffered that the theft is reasonable—in his case, desirable.

The fact is we live in a classed society and when working class and working poor people become conscious that the values we use to provide warrants for democratic and market principles are aristocratic and favor the wealthiest members of society, the working class and working poor find alternate means to earn money.

As I mentioned as prelude to my argument, capitalist culture likes to quantify everything. How do you produce more value in life when you’re poor without taking for yourself, which is what theft amounts to—taking unearned value? It’s a contradiction in capitalist culture that permits the wealthiest to take and profit at will, but restricts such behavior for the poor and working classes. Is stealing improper and illegal? Sure it is. Is it better to steal from The Gap than a family-run business? Should you burn down the corner store or Royal Bank of Scotland? Well, there’s the rub. It’s aristocratic to go around evaluating ethics—our behavior and character—this way. 

There’s a better way to think about the problem. Look at the last stanza of the song, “The benefit boys are out of touch. What they don’t know won’t hurt them much … If I’m caught, I’ll go down for a month or three. But they’ll still be paying out looking after me.” We live in communities where people figure this out at quite a young age. That if they cannot create enough value, they’ll find a way to make it but for themselves. And this mirrors the activity of the richest members of society, who routinely earn more for themselves than they benefit their communities. If their community doesn’t like it, the community will have to pay one way or the other. It’s the kind of protest that slaves make against their masters.

When we decide to see the riots as a problem caused by “the looters,” we should ask ourselves for what purpose we’re making the debate about the looting rather than the cause of the looting, which is to say, than the cause of the riots that led to looting. Should we throw all the bad looters in prison? If so, then we need to cease whining about the costs of rioting. It’ll certainly cost more to imprison the hundreds of looters and prosecute the thousands of rioters. If we want to use capitalist morality to argue contra looting and rioting, then we should be consistent.

In addition, we actively ignore the aristocratic morality and utilitarianism that hurts us all when we condemn the looting in this way. In other words, we ignore the social construction that organizes the situation for a riot to occur. When we post photos of looters to help the police, for example. When we shout our discontent about the looters. The looters are a sign of the structural problem in capitalist culture that heaps a mountain of unearned ambition onto the elite and shame on the rest of us for not being elite. We encourage further corruption of our moral sentiments.

I’ve heard criticism of youth culture as well. The kids certainly do bad things, but they are a sign of a cultural problem, not the actual problem itself. The youth in the working and poor classes, in England as elsewhere, are cynical and educated and knowledgable about the problems in society, They have no ganster illusions about what it means to steal. They simply don’t care. I can understand why people fear wilding youth who don’t give a shit, but the answer isn’t imprison them all. The answer is, change their social situation. The flippant attitude they have looting is similar to the more understandably flippant attitude of the singer in this awesome Cock Sparrer song.

I, too, need more than food and rent. Our governments and citizens apparently prefer to pay to cover up any social injustice rather than alter society to correct the injustice, the inequality. There’s not much I’d be convinced wasn’t worth doing to get what I want. You got yours, I’ll take mine. It might be the mindset of a slave, but we have taught citizens that mentality with our aristocratic culture. We deposit, to use a capitalist verb, the slave mentality into students’ minds when we teach them that those that have deserve what they got and those who don’t haven’t earned what they want. It goes further in times of austerity where the wealthy become those who need more, and the poor those who desire too much.

Do I like stealing and violence? No, but I refuse to condemn the individuals who acted violently in exchange for condemning the culture that creates the urge for such expressions to exist.

Maybe the looters are assholes. Assholes serve an important role in culture. Assholes physically locate society’s shitty places, and the assholes publicly express that shit wherever they happen to be. In other words, we need the assholes.

Looting is only bad when poor people do it.

At some point in our lives, we have to decide whether or not we’re doing things now and for ourselves, or we’re doing things with others for some reason and for the long term. It’s a battle for modern humanity to decide to act in its own best interests, and in my opinion capitalism is to blame. Capitalism is about self-preservation and, no matter what the pro-capitalist ethicists say, short-term profit. To act against human being is a good thing if value can be generated as a result. To live a good life in common with others is always to be opposed to capitalism. This is something dedicated teachers often realize a few years into teaching: I’m not doing this for me or for others, I’m doing this with others for something that will happen some time from now.

When you think about life in this manner, you can understand how absurd it is to live in a world that understands and accepts the legal and daily corporate looting of the products of human labor and nature but cannot understand, refuses to understand, the looting occurring in the UK.

The looting capitalists are legally permitted is passively accepted and any critical thought dedicated to reflecting on it is considered subversive—in other words, without profit. For example, we’ve looted Africa of its natural resources, often at gun point and via slavery. Where are the protests against the mines and drill sites? When people riot in a localized area, looting often results happens. When it does happen, people aggressively reject it. People argue about it. Why?

Think about it. Insist your friends and neighbors address this issue in a holistic manner. We’re hypocrites otherwise.

This says it all. Darcus Howe’s rational, reasonable and impassioned speech and the newswoman’s intolerance and stupidity.

(Source: philosophy-of-praxis)

The Adult Scolds The Child

I guess I’m only permitted a few minutes of fun tonight; he blocked me after only these exchanges. 

Dude has a photo of GI Gurdjieff on his profile and is working for the cops. That’s a little weird. I wasn’t aware that Gurdjieff’s mysticism about liberation of the mind via the fourth way was actually about acting like a big boy and tattle-tale-ing. 

Facebook Snitches

What’s with all the FB users posting CCTV images of riot participants? I guess I know which of my FB friends are useless tools of oppression, snitches and haters.

It’s one thing to dislike the destruction and pain rioting causes. It’s completely something else to become a cop. Certainly illustrates that many people simply do not want to understand what leads to, I don’t know, riots. Snitching and turning neighbors in is a horrible response and should be discouraged.

Has anyone else seen stuff like this?

dez-ray:

dagseoul:

dez-ray:

dagseoul:

No, Penny Red, riots are not about power.

We have to be willing to admit that riots, even extended riots wherein some elements seem to be well-organized, are not organized and in the end exist as expressions of excess. Once expressed, order is re-established. So, riots are…

If it were my city burning I’d be pretty fucking sentimental too, writer or no. Jesus.

Wait a second. I think you misunderstand my use of sentimental. I’m not talking about being sad about the devastation. I’m criticizing some of her descriptions about HER that, I think, are unnecessary. I’m a fan of Penny Red, so I’m not knocking here. I’m annoyed at her tone in the opening and closing of the post. Let’s be clear that I’m sad about the devastation. I’m not shocked. I’m saddened and I’d like to be hopeful that people will not be hurt. I’m not upset that people are destroying things. I’m kind of convinced that people will destroy things.

All that said, the point of my post was to remind people that riots are about establishing an order. We often talk about the disorder and chaos in rioting. But what typically results (when revolution is not present) is a strong and re-enforced order. Penny Red writes that riots are about power. And that, my friend, is an attempt to romanticize the working class in a way that I don’t like. The rioting is not about accumulating power, it’s about expressing excess. Expressing, in other words, Using or Destroying or Expelling. …

Alright, I hear you.

About power though, when I read what she wrote about power I read it more about exercising power rather than accumulating power.

I hear you. I suppose that might be the case. I’d like to say, I’ll give you that they feel like they are exercising power. Of course they are. I’m always a little weary when we (the left) romanticize situations and individuals in those situations. I don’t think there’s anything sentimental about direct action. I kind of get dogmatic about it. 

BTW, I cry. I am a sentimental fool. A romantic, even. There are some things that blogs don’t illustrate very well. 

(via proto-flake-deactivated20120717)

dez-ray:

dagseoul:

No, Penny Red, riots are not about power.

We have to be willing to admit that riots, even extended riots wherein some elements seem to be well-organized, are not organized and in the end exist as expressions of excess. Once expressed, order is re-established. So, riots are…

If it were my city burning I’d be pretty fucking sentimental too, writer or no. Jesus.

Wait a second. I think you misunderstand my use of sentimental. I’m not talking about being sad about the devastation. I’m criticizing some of her descriptions about her that, I think, are unnecessary. I’m a fan of Penny Red, so I’m not knocking the blog.

I’m annoyed at her tone in the opening and closing of the post. Let’s be clear that I’m sad about the devastation. I’m not shocked. I’m saddened, and I’d like to be hopeful that people will not be hurt. I’m not upset that people are destroying things. I’m kind of convinced that people will destroy things.

All that said, the point of my post was to remind people that riots are about establishing an order. We often talk about the disorder and chaos in rioting. But what typically results (when revolution is not present) is a strong and re-enforced order. Penny Red writes that riots are about power. And that, my friend, is an attempt to romanticize the working-class rioters in a way that I don’t like. The rioting is not about accumulating power, it’s about expressing excess. Expressing, in other words, Using or Destroying or Expelling. …

(via proto-flake-deactivated20120717)

hat-tip to noobyorker for turning me on to this. I follow Lenin’s Tomb, but hadn’t seen this post. I agree with most of it. Highly recommended reading.

That’s Capitalism Speaking

No, Penny Red, riots are not about power.

We have to be willing to admit that riots, even extended riots wherein some elements seem to be well-organized, are not organized and in the end exist as expressions of excess. Once expressed, order is re-established. So, riots are actually about establishing an order.

As Penny Red notes in her conclusion, it’s going to be up to the people and their government to decide what that order looks like. I’m pessimistic about transformation. In England, you’ll see growth in nationalism, xenophobia, and far right wing activity. You’ll see a re-emergence of white power. A continued rise in anti-immigrant sentiment. You’ll see the poor and uneducated blamed and punished. You’ll see tougher laws, longer sentences, more violent policing. (I hope I’m wrong.)

Rioting is about expression not empowerment. The State will seek to further disempower and disinherit those communities that were involved. And I don’t mean to imply that rioting is counter-productive. I don’t think it always is.

I really don’t like the way she gets sentimental in the last two paragraphs. It’s as if she’s romanticizing being there. I hate it when writers do that. Bad form.

Who’s Responsible For All of This? (Hint: It’s not the people rioting.)

The next idiot who writes in exaggerated disgust that the people rioting are “responsible for all of this“—this being the devastation, the disorder, the chaos, the havoc—should be asked if they have ever given two shits about the devastation, the disorder, the chaos, the havoc his or her government daily wages on foreigners, laborers and the poor all over the world.

In this case, the British government and police are responsible for all of this. As are the British citizens who idly observe. As are all of us, really. Riots certainly don’t have anything to do with notions of innocence and guilt. Riots are chaotic expressions without order, as I have explained in prior posts. You can join in, or get the fuck out the way.

Pointing fingers while watching televised images of violence between commercials is absurd.

Anyway, it’s a stupid statement to make. Don’t let people get away with it.

Trad Media, White Power & Order

We’re already seeing traditional media attempt to establish an order to the rioting. In other words, attempt to explain that the riots were actually organized. This false and externally constructed order will likely be applied to poor and non-white youths using technology to organize the attacks on police and business.

We should get out ahead of these stories, which are already appearing. I’ve already read about rioters using Twitter & Blackberries to outwit cops.

A Riot is A Riot is A Riot is A Riot

I’m thinking about the history of riots in the US: political, race, anti-war, labor, etc. Not simply thinking about London. Let’s put rioting in perspective.

To call for order in the expressions of rage in a riot is pointless.

An organized protest is based in disobedience, which has a logic to it. Riots will happen when even disobedience fails to create an order.

We do know one thing: wealth is possessed by a minority. The wealthier people are, the more access they have to traditionally peaceful means of public discourse, which are used to cultivate an order. What Hegel called Right. What we lazily refer to as rights.

A minority of people have access to such discourse. The majority of us are impoverished, whether educated or not and nowadays often independent of ethnicity , and the further we organize the more local we become. Unfortunately, that local organization withdraws us from trad public discourse, which as we can see with the coverage of the London riots, is globally focused. As in, privileged people will watch footage of the riots on their big screen TVs and say to their honeys, “OMG, I don’t want this to happen here.” And order can be maintained in many areas simply through that fear of disorder that might spread.

It’s no wonder nobody knows what’s going on. Traditional media—the global distribution of public discourse—is funded by and distributed for the privileged minority, to make them feel safe. Safety is related to Order via traditional and global public discourse.

It’s also pointless to focus on categories like race. A riot is a violent representation of actual disorder in a local community. Whosoever is rioting is no longer representable as black, white, brown, red, yellow: they are rioters unified in their riot. And rioters are purposefully rioting without purpose. In other words, it’s silly to say: “It’s meant to be violent.” It’s not meant to be anything. It’s simply happening. And when the excess of expression has been expressed, the activity will cease being a riot.

STOP trying to give this meaning. It has none. That’s the point, isn’t it. Shouldn’t we realize that it’s the privileged minority and their media that will establish order post-riot and we should insist on not participating in the re-establishing of traditional discourse.