November 11, 2010
In Praise of Riots
“I say that those who condemn the tumults between the nobles and the plebs, appear to me to blame those things that were the chief causes for keeping Rome free, and that they paid more attention to the noises and shouts that arose in those tumults than to the good effects they brought forth…And if the tumults were the cause of creation of Tribunes, they merit the highest praise, for in addition to giving the people a part in administration, they were established for guarding Roman liberty.”
So wrote Niccolò Machiavelli in his Discorsi, perhaps the first great work of modern political theory.
It would be misleading to extrapolate too much from Machiavelli’s concerns about the governing of a 16th century Italian city state. But regardless, like Machiavelli I have no inherent problem with “tumults” – or as we would now call them, riots.
Machiavelli’s core point is that rioting safe-guarded freedom. It was because the Roman plebs took arms against the nobles that the latter remembered not to push things too far. That made rioting a useful corrective, and a check against the abuses of the powerful.
It’s not clear that anything has changed today. If a party is elected to government on a series of manifesto pledges, and then reneges on them systematically, it may be no bad thing if the betrayed express their discontent via physical public unrest.
Indeed, Machiavelli also held a connected and crucially important view:
“If the object of the Nobles and the People is considered, it will be seen that the former have a great desire to dominate, and the latter a desire not to be dominated and consequently a greater desire to live free…so that the People placed in charge to guard the liberty of anyone, reasonably will take better care of it; for not being able to take it away themselves, they do not permit others to take it away”
Those in positions of power will seek to dominate the weaker. To defend freedom of the (city-)state, the ruled must possess the ability to strike back at the rulers.
You can see where this is going, even if it needs updating by 500 years.
If the NUS organises a 50,000-strong rally in London, and sections of the protest attack physical property owned by the powerful Conservative Party, then forcibly confront the police, this is not an inherently bad thing – and especially if nobody is seriously hurt.
Of course, the usual suspects sitting in their usual swamps have already spouted the tired old clichés about “a few troublemakers” and the importance of “peaceful protest”. But I disagree when the implication is that rioting can never be justified. There is no fail-safe reason why the populi cannot, at times of extreme discontent, employ physical force against the mechanisms of an authority which is committing violence against them.
And I do mean violence. Because when a government decides that (for example) the seriously diabetic are not “really” disabled, and can thus have their disability allowances halved over-night, rendering many unable to meet the rent – that is a form of violence.
When generations of young people suffer government policies rendering higher education more exclusive whilst reducing employment prospects for the millions already out of work – that is a form of violence.
When the unemployed are to be compelled into slave-like forced employment schemes (or rather, ultra-expensive hypocritical gimmicks aimed at a tiny minority of tabloid hate-figures) – that is a form of violence.
In short: if government systematically attacks the interests and well-being of citizens, this constitutes a form of violence. That such violence is achieved by bureaucratic mandate and the mechanisms of officialdom is irrelevant. The policies of the current Coalition Government are attacks of violence upon the fabric of British society, and the British people themselves.
Yesterday, tens of thousands of students gathered in London. Some of them fought the police, and attempted to damage the property of both the state and the Conservative party. Good. British citizens should do it again and again, until our lords and masters understand.
If rioting secured the liberty of Rome, perhaps it can salvage the welfare state of Britain. After all, who else is going to bring this radical and destructive juggernaut to a halt? Not Nick Clegg, that’s for sure.
Milo said,
November 11, 2010 at 12:19 am
Sorry Paul, but whatever you think of the HE proposals (and I oppose them) they will not necessarily make higher education more exclusive because there’s no upfront fees.
It’s a surprisingly childish reaction from you to say violence is justified in these cases, whether against buildings or people (and of course the threshold for the latter is considerably higher).
Paul Sagar said,
November 11, 2010 at 12:27 am
OK, in 15 years after the fee cap is lifted and grants for poor students are virtually a thing of the past, do you really reckon that university education is going to be affordable to all?
We are quite clearly headed towards the American system, where only the upper-middle class (financed by parents who are forced to save for decades to put children through university) and the rich are able to access higher education, with all the knock-on effects for social (im)mobility. Except at least American can go to the state university for free, and simply be excluded from the top schools that feed the successful demographics of the future. In the UK, we won’t even have that left.
As for justifying rioting, well frankly I think that a concerted assault on the British welfare state and an attempt to completely overturn the post-war settlement is justified cause for people being out on the streets. The injustices we’re seeing at present – the demolition of the NHS by the back door, the dismantling of the welfare safety net, attacks on the unemployed and those dependent on support from the state etc etc, alongside allowing corporations which caused the present mess to carry on as before, whilst the rich are protected from serious tax rises as benefits are cut to the sick, vulnerable and impoverished- are a fucking disgrace.
People should be angry. When people are angry, they smash things. If they smash enough things, governments have to take notice. Frankly, if you sit on the “oooh but we can’t possibly condone rioting because, y’know, that’s just bad” side of the fence, you’re either naive, or with those who want to fundamentally restructure this society in a fit of ideological madness. Either way, I don’t particularly care. You’re on the wrong side.
Things are getting bad. And they are set to get worse. My French heritage says: fight back, or you’re fucked. I think the French get this one more right than the British.
BenSix said,
November 11, 2010 at 1:35 am
Good post! Well, right up until the final paragraph. A substantial number of people rioting might imply broad discontent but one has to consider everything from ideology to testosterone – it needn’t be serious raaaaaage.
BenSix said,
November 11, 2010 at 1:51 am
(Oh and to make a tedious clarification I’m not sure that rioting was just or sage in this instance. Agree with the principle that it can be legitimate, however; arguing otherwise imputes a reasonless infallability to democratic procedures. A vague parallel: it’s generally fair to knock on your neighbour’s door before expecting entrance. If, however, you can hear the screams of his beleaguered, beaten wife or kids you wouldn’t think, “I’d better not force the latch. It’s more polite to knock…“)
Mark said,
November 11, 2010 at 2:14 am
The problem with students is that they contribute nothing to society and normally have no understanding of the causes which they sign up to. Just self-righteous moral outrage.
Student campaigner – “the arms trade is bad”
Me – “why?”
Student campaigner (visibly flustered) – “it just is!”
That’s why it is hard to take their demonstrations seriously. There are some issues on which I’d support a riot against authority – but waah waah waah give me more money so I can waste everyone’s time doesn’t really do it for me.
It is actually a bit like if Fred Goodwin and chums went on a violent rampage to protest their pay being cut. Does it have to be either or? Can’t we have both groups of wasters out on their ears please?
And Paul – 2 questions.
What are the advantages to young people of higher education, above and beyond other forms of education such as on the job training or reading? What are the advantages to society?
Do you think that every adult should be entitled to indefinite holidays?
Mark said,
November 11, 2010 at 2:16 am
That was three questions. Sorry.
Is Discussing The Effectiveness Of Violence At Protests Effective? « Back Towards The Locus said,
November 11, 2010 at 3:05 am
[...] And. Also. [...]
Richard said,
November 11, 2010 at 8:13 am
Were those responsible for the violence the poor oppressed masses? Or were they the usual SWP/anarchist troublemakers promoting their own insidious agenda? I don’t see how smashing up someone’s car or hurling a fire extinguisher down at the police helps their cause either. It certainly won’t increase public sympathy.
These people aren’t rioting over being denied their civil rights (in which case I might be persuaded to admit that some form of violence against legitimate targets was justified) but over the issue of money (or because they’re the sort who join every demo for a good ruckus).
Incidentally I doubt you would be too happy if it was your property that was damaged as a result of this behaviour.
Tim Worstall said,
November 11, 2010 at 8:18 am
Err, the American system isn’t money constrained as to access. If you can get into Harvard you will get it paid for somehow. The University itself offers bursaries which cover both fees and living expenses for example.
And I’m with Ben 6 on the motivations for riots. I agree with your point that there are times when it is righteous that the plebs riot: but that does not mean that the existence of a riot shows that the plebs are righteously doing so.
Rioting is fun you see?
Chrisy Tomo said,
November 11, 2010 at 8:41 am
Loved reading another well argued article Mr Sagar. As a former Classics student I thoroughly enjoyed the link to the Roman social structure and ultimately what we can learn from a tried and tested system. The next step should clearly be for us to march upon London … Cameron’s head and tongue on a spike? If only Mark-Anthony was still alive. The old ways are the best.
The real question though, is do you have a poodle in your pot noodle?
Love from the Swiss Alps.
Luis Enrique said,
November 11, 2010 at 8:55 am
understand what? maybe that a vocal minority are opposed to reform.
are we also going to get riots from those who think having graduates pay directly for their education is fairer than funding it out of general taxation?
I’m not sure what message such demonstrations communicate, nor when governments should change policy because of them. I’m not ‘against riots’ as such.
Richard said,
November 11, 2010 at 9:02 am
“As for justifying rioting, well frankly I think that a concerted assault on the British welfare state and an attempt to completely overturn the post-war settlement is justified cause for people being out on the streets”
By this logic a right-wing government should never be allowed in power and we should have permanent social-democratic rule.
Rob said,
November 11, 2010 at 9:27 am
There might be a tactical question about the wisdom of this particular riot, but about the only thing I really disagree with is that there’s no moral difference between the Coalition’s programme and the damage inflicted by the rioters. A few minor injuries and some broken windows at Tory HQ vs. hacking tens of billions of pounds out of the system of state support for society’s most vulnerable in order to pay for the greed of the wealthiest? Surely it’s no contest – although I’m actually less troubled by the specific part of the programme that was being rioted about than many other people.
Richard said,
November 11, 2010 at 9:31 am
If a Labour government came to power which decided to shut down the private schools, would parents and pupils be justified in marching on Labour HQ and occupying it?
James A said,
November 11, 2010 at 10:01 am
Hi Paul,
Great OP. I very much agree that those who focus on the so-called “violence” of the protestors, but do not condemn the very real violence “achieved by bureaucratic mandate and the mechanisms of officialdom” are hypocrites at best. It’s also worth being very clear that the concept of violence ought not to apply to damage done to property. That it is so readily applied in this way is indicative of the sacralization of property, but it is really a perversion of the concept of violence.
And nice use of Machiavelli!
James
John Meredith said,
November 11, 2010 at 11:16 am
“people generally don’t riot unless they are really pissed off. When it gets to the point that significant numbers of people are sufficiently pissed off that they are rioting, that means things are seriously bad”
Didn’t some young white men run riot in Bradford fairly recently because they took issue with all those brown and black people? I guess if enough of them are sufficiently pissed off …
Peter Risdon said,
November 11, 2010 at 11:51 am
So the violent minority intimidates its way to policy success while the law-abiding majority who express their wishes through the vote are over-ridden. And this is good because you, personally, agree with the violent minority.
Left Outside said,
November 11, 2010 at 12:01 pm
“So the violent minority intimidates its way to policy success while the law-abiding majority who express their wishes through the vote are over-ridden. And this is good because you, personally, agree with the violent minority.”
Sorry, you appear to have slipped, let me rephrase that for you…
So the violent minority of tory grandees intimidates its way to policy success through lying about the public finances while the law-abiding majority who express their wishes through the vote are over-ridden and told they asked for it because coalition demands “compromises” which no one would vote for. And this is bad because I, personally, agree with the violent minority of tory grandees.
There you go.
__
Good post Paul. I think people underestimate exactly how vital violent outbursts have been in checking the state and arbitrary power for the last, ooo, few thousand years or so.
John Meredith said,
November 11, 2010 at 12:23 pm
“Good post Paul. I think people underestimate exactly how vital violent outbursts have been in checking the state and arbitrary power for the last, ooo, few thousand years or so.”
This only makes sense if you think these violent outbursts are likely to achieve a policy effect. But surely it is more likely that they will allow policy makers to ignore student protests (as well as ignoring the fact that a violent outburst against a pre-democratic state is a rather different thing to a violent outburt within one).
Dowen said,
November 11, 2010 at 12:28 pm
You might also look at Hobbes (no friend of liberty) on natural rebellion and why wise rulers should try to avoid this state of affairs.
Paul Sorene said,
November 11, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Can I feature this post on Anorak?
davebones said,
November 11, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I was arguing about this a lot with some friends yesterday. Although your post is a very interesting history lesson I am not sure the reality today is thumbs up to a bit or argy bargy.
The people who got arrested yesterday are probably going to get off a bit lighter cos they are white students, but this sort of action encourages judges to award what they call “deterrent sentences” like in Bradford.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2710427.stm
I have been on a lot of protests and seen the Police develop tactics which work and continue upping those tactics with no one being able to put the brakes on until they actually killed someone who wasn’t a protester.
I have seen too many protesters with the attitude you are describing seduced into focusing on Police tactics and their energies are taken away from the change they want to see because the Police are outside their door the morning of every protest.
Is an upping of violence really what you want to see?
I think we need coherent and organised direct action and mass mobilization not a few people mug enough to get themselves arrested for smashing stuff.
Peter Risdon said,
November 11, 2010 at 5:09 pm
According to leftoutside, we would have been right to overthrow the last Labour government, violently, because the majority of people voted for other parties. In England, more voted Tory than Labour.
This is political depravity.
Peter Risdon said,
November 11, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Incidentally, the IMF have joined that nasty Tory conspiracy to lie about our finances.
Left Outside said,
November 11, 2010 at 5:24 pm
“According to leftoutside, we would have been right to overthrow the last Labour government, violently, because the majority of people voted for other parties. In England, more voted Tory than Labour.”
No, because you all cast votes and overtly assented to abide by the results of the election with respect to the administration formed. You agreed to play the game, so you have to deal with the results. No generalised Maoist insurgency is really permissible.
The individual policies on the other hand, sure you can riot occassionally. Maybe if Labour tried to invade another country on a tissue of lies then people would be justified in…oh hang on. You get the idea. The students aren’t attempting a coup, they’re (we’re) protesting a policy.
The IMF! That would be the IMF who predicted massive social unrest due to the cuts the tories are proposing?
Peter Risdon said,
November 11, 2010 at 5:35 pm
“Maybe if Labour tried to invade another country on a tissue of lies…”
A lie about lies. The intelligence about WMDs was widely accepted at the time. And no, rioting is exactly the attempt to override the wishes of the electorate – something Norm Geras has termed democracy. As I said, this it’s political depravity.
The paper you linked to, jointly authored by the IMF, says this: “Significantly reducing debt indicators requires a long timeframe in order to make space for the immediate measures needed to stimulate sustainable growth and jobs. A politically and socially viable process of fiscal consolidation needs to take place in the context of a stable recovery of global growth. Social dialogue is essential to avoiding an explosion of social unrest.”
Unless you can point me to a different part you are quoting, you seem to have an elastic approach to source material, to be unduly polite about it.
Hoover said,
November 11, 2010 at 6:22 pm
1) The finances are in sufficiently bad shape that we can no longer afford to fund everything.
2) Many graduate jobs are pointless make-work. Why should the country fund training for make-work?
3) Violence is violence. Cutting benefits to sufferers of diabetes is not violence. There is, of course, no way to make you understand your false equivalence until you have experienced real violence.
Millbank #Demo2010: Non-violent student demonstration, eh? — The Wardman Wire said,
November 11, 2010 at 6:34 pm
[...] Hmmmm. From the Bad Conscience blog commenting on the Demo2010 student protests from November 10th: If the NUS organises a 50,000-strong rally in London, and sections of the protest attack physical property owned by the powerful Conservative Party, then forcibly confront the police, this is not an inherently bad thing – and especially if nobody is seriously hurt. [...]
BenSix said,
November 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm
The notion that retiring spinsters had demonic tendencies was “widely accepted” at one time. The fact that they were popular doesn’t mean that they weren’t lies.
And I think rioting – neatly targeted, o’ course – would be quite acceptable to stymie unjust wars however they popular they were within the invading nation. The rioters would, after all, be giving a view on something that’d barely effect most o’ the citizens.
Peter Risdon said,
November 11, 2010 at 7:55 pm
And for people who believed this, saying so would not have been a lie. You’re confusing something being a lie (not believed by the speaker) with something being believed but untrue (like, say, religious belief).
I’ve read your link – once you strip away the tendentious presentation, nothing there suggests anyone was lying, merely that there wasn’t unanimity of opinion and advice, which doesn’t make the situation unique.
The fact is, intelligence agencies believed Saddam was still making WMDs – they hadn’t pulled this out of the air, he had made them and used them, and tried to make them (nukes) and been stymied by Israeli jets. No lies involved. Spin, certainly but, again, that doesn’t stand out as unique.
Peter Risdon said,
November 11, 2010 at 7:58 pm
And so far as the rioting goes, I can’t distinguish between any people who want to augment democracy with “well-aimed boots and fists”.
BenSix said,
November 11, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Well, I doubt it was believed by some of the Witchfinder Generals and they’re the powermongers in this comparison.
It would be dull to recount the evidence provided in the first link alone, never mind the second, but to be clear Powell was accused of (a) reporting things as fact that his own researchers had told him were utterly untrue, (b) misquoting statements such as to extract a wholly fraudulent significance and (c) ignoring the advice his experts had blessed him with. If I were to, say, take your statement “I don’t have any skeletons in my closet” and inform the police that “Peter Risdon hides the bloodstained corpses of his victims in a cupboard” would you accept my explanation that it was just a bit o’ “spin“? Naturally there’s far, far more but I’ve no wish to clog this thread with a great big dollop o’ dirt.
The latter was in 1981, I believe.
Let’s imagine a country named, say, Democratiya. The state of Democratiya plans to bomb its next door neighbour for the crime of looking at its borders in a funny way. Its Parliament has endorsed it, its people have no way to stop it — what would you suggest?
grrl said,
November 12, 2010 at 1:13 am
“We tend to forget that many of the human rights we cherish today are a direct result of protests by ordinary people who were prepared to go onto the streets…”
like… during “the Suffragette Movement in England” that “brought about the right for women to vote” .
Quoted from http://www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/human-rights-your-rights-protest.html
john malpas said,
November 12, 2010 at 4:25 am
I expect many of the rioters would have been quite upset if the received what they wanted to dish out.
Phil said,
November 12, 2010 at 9:14 am
Yes, if only the balance of force wasn’t so heavily weighted against the police! There were literally a couple of hundred people creating a nuisance on Wednesday, and nothing to stop them except the Metropolitan Police – poor lambs, trying to keep the peace with nothing but a pointy hat and a whistle. At the very least they ought to be issued with sticks, large, rioters for the hitting of. “Truncheons”, that’s the word I’m looking for. Has a ring to it.
Seconds Out, Round Two « Bad Conscience said,
November 13, 2010 at 12:47 am
[...] post In Praise of Riots attracted an undue amount of attention. Several people have asked me to clarify my position, and [...]
Fixed Schlock From Wood Green… « Back Towards The Locus said,
November 14, 2010 at 9:53 pm
[...] “spin“. No “mistakes“. Great big greasy [...]
Flora said,
November 15, 2010 at 10:31 am
I don’t agree with you that the Browne review is a bad thing, but that’s fine, plenty of people on both sides of the fence for that one. I am APPALLED however that you think that violence in the streets is EVER a good thing. What about all the innocent policemen and policewomen who got hurt? What about the innocent office workers who got terrorised? You make it sound like only the government was inconvenienced – this is just plain wrong.
The most shocking part of your article was this : “people generally don’t riot unless they are really pissed off.”
This is so naive that I find it laughable. Mob mentality, anyone? People go on a march because they think it’s cool and their friends do it. People start kicking things in because everyone else does. Only one person needs to throw the first stone, and they need not even be pissed off with the cause, only drunk, or pissed off with something else.
However you feel about the Browne review, advocating violence is ridiculous. The whole reason violent mobs are dangerous is that they are not rational.
Personally, I would much rather have a government based on Cameron’s ideologies than Machiavelli’s. Maybe I’m in the minority here.
Jed Pietersen said,
November 15, 2010 at 5:31 pm
“These people aren’t rioting over being denied their civil rights (in which case I might be persuaded to admit that some form of violence against legitimate targets was justified) but over the issue of money (or because they’re the sort who join every demo for a good ruckus).”
Refer to this: Article 26 (1) of the Declaration of Human Rights.
“higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit”
“Sorry Paul, but whatever you think of the HE proposals (and I oppose them) they will not necessarily make higher education more exclusive because there’s no upfront fees.”
Higher fees (and fees in general) remove equal access on the basis of merit. An incredibly intelligent 18 year old from a family on benefits in a rundown area of “broken Britain” is much less likely to consider pursuing higher education at a cost of £30000+ in debt than a counterpart whose parents have spent thousands of pounds a year on their Eton education. It’s all in the discourse – the government wants a “free, competitive market” for education. Markets are based on price. Economically less well off families, in general, are much less likely to be able to afford luxury goods. They are also less likely to be able to pay off debt. The “no-upfront fees” argument is over-simplistic.
Jed Pietersen said,
November 15, 2010 at 8:05 pm
To add:
Percentage of Cambridge Undergraduates from a private school background: 50%
Percentage of children in the UK receiving a private education: approx 7%
I really doubt raising fees do anything but further exaggerate this misrepresentation.
Its not just about fees, its about wider access issues
The necessity of riots in democracy said,
November 16, 2010 at 7:35 am
[...] Written by Paul Sagar, on Bad Conscience, November 11th 2010.Translated by Laurent Delpit. See the original article in EnglishArticle also translated in: The United-Kingdom has entered a historical austerity era: over the [...]
Political depravity « Peter Risdon said,
November 16, 2010 at 9:43 pm
[...] similar, but this time depraved. And Chris Dillow: Paul Sagar welcomes this week’s riots as “a useful corrective, and a check against the abuses of the powerful”. I [...]
On Violence and Recent Protest « Bad Conscience said,
March 27, 2011 at 9:25 pm
[...] London, Media, Political Philosophy, Politics, Society, The Police at 9:25 pm by Paul Sagar As previously noted, I have no problem per se with political violence. Its use and justification must be assessed [...]
Saturday’s protests and incidents of violence | Liberal Conspiracy said,
March 28, 2011 at 2:37 pm
[...] protests and incidents of violence by Paul Sagar March 28, 2011 at 2:36 pm >As previously noted, I have no problem per se with political [...]