Jump to content

Recommended Posts

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But actually, if you wanted to open it up along

> Marxist lines, it's hard not to be critical of the

> riots, there was no central point, they didn't

> attack the rich, it wasn't organised along

> class/privilege lines, etc. etc. Zizek was

> dismissive of what he called the "left

> libertarian" understanding and excuse making for

> the rioters, and his analysis of the riots didn't

> divine any "class consciouscness" in the riots.



I cant get involkved in this miga, ive got too much to do tonight! I thought the riots were appalling

Yes the response was insane Otta and definitely steeped in class issues.


The actual riots themselves though were a spntaneous act of 'I can, therefore I will', helped to swell by social media. Had facebook spread the word about a mass demo taking over parliament, many of those rioters wouldn't have got out of bed. But tweet free stuff and no Police around, up they all get. It's what it reflects about our culture that's more interesting to me. The importance placed on things and the kudos associated with them over anything of real substence. We have a generation of kids who hate the Police and authority but can't articulate why. A generaltion of kids who want everything for nothing and so on. Not all kids I know but the malaise is there, and worrying.

quick one before I start prepping a wholsome organic supper


taking a marxian overview of the whys and wherefors of these riots would go along with Baumans perspective- to take it down to its nuts and bolts- its all capitals fault


the Zizek- and I have not read this in depth but will do later

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It's interesting how local businesses and the people that own / work in them are not considered part of the "community". The dictionary says "a group of people living in the same place" as the principal definition. Why are we forced to accept a secondary definition where those who don't live in social housing, the vast majority of people in East Dulwich, are told to shut up?
    • They often grow in the angle between wall and pavement which could cause damage to the foundation of the wall and leave the council open to being sued.
    • If weeds are allowed to grow for too long they lift pavements and create obvious tripping hazards. Obviously removing them from your wall and/or garden is unacceptable. 
    • This is NEXT WEDNESDAY 11 June! Just turn up if you prefer not to give prior notice! The Palmerston from  7pm, turn left as you come in! (If you have been hiding under a rock, The Palmerston is the pub on Lordship Lane on the corner of North Cross Road).
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...