Britain burns - Chavs ruin civilization

[Warspite]

The 2010 Student Protests were not a riot.

[Martinus]

The 2010 Student Protests were not a riot.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, while I am far from interpreting the situation in Britain according to a leftist discourse, there is something to be said about the fact that for the last 20 years or so, Britain shifted to a model where a small number of elite earned huge amounts of cash in the high flying City-based economy, while the rest was kept docile by government handouts. Now, the money has run out and the morlocks are raising to eat the elois.

I believe I said the same thing about 3 months ago or so and predicted a massive revolt in Britain but was laughed at.

[Tamas]

Incidentally, while I am far from interpreting the situation in Britain according to a leftist discourse, there is something to be said about the fact that for the last 20 years or so, Britain shifted to a model where a small number of elite earned huge amounts of cash in the high flying City-based economy, while the rest was kept docile by government handouts. Now, the money has run out and the morlocks are raising to eat the elois.

I believe I said the same thing about 3 months ago or so and predicted a massive revolt in Britain but was laughed at.

No that is not a leftist interpretation, that is a more or less correct assesment of the Europe-wide result of 3 or 4 decades of leftists policies.

[Martinus]

Here're the posts I am talking about, from March:

It seems to me that for the last 20 years or so, Britain has created a sort of unwritten socio-economic contract, in which the rich generated wealth by vacuuming world cash through financial markets and giving it out as welfare handouts to the underclass, to prevent unrest and keep the internal consumption going (the City high-fliers do not buy cheap plasmas, and after Mrs. Thatcher effectively shut down Britain's heavy industry and then the rest of manufacturing industry fled abroad, there is preciously little wealth generating jobs left in the UK). Essentially, the beautiful eloi (sp?) worked and shared their wealth with the ugly lazy and poor morlocks.

Now that this steady flow of money into the economy has stopped due to the financial markets' crisis and the eloi are closing down the gravy tap by the "necessary cuts" (it's funny how the lucky, privileged rich do not see they are effectively breaking that contract that allowed them to keep/attain their position, and instead see it as justice against the lazy welfare underclass), what is the chance of the morlocks rising up and eating them?

Discuss.

It's actually interesting how in retrospect the German economy - for so many years called the "sick man of Europe" - proves to be the right model, based on domestic production (and hefty foreign trade surplus) coupled with some of the best social protections, ensuring solid redistribution of goods (not to mention making sure tax havens are not a valid option).

Compare this to the UK model, where the tory government hires, as its "fiscal responsibility expert", a guy who got rich on a store chain by avoiding paying taxes in the UK thanks to his Monaco-resident

If you create an economy where more than 5-10% or so of the working age populace simply has no option for gainful employment, and then decide to cut welfare to the "lazy ones", you are on a straight way to social unrest.

Having a "slimmed down" economy, that is not weighed down by mass employment of the working class has its advantages but you need to address social costs (and share the wealth with those who are left out) rather than sneer at them from your City/White Hall ivory tower for being unable to find a job.

What Germany does best is that they seem to factor social costs (and social "welfare", not necessarily meaning hand outs but the well-being of the populace at large) into their economic model. You can't build an economy that simply treats employees as a "resource" that is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as raw materials or manufacturing equipment - because sooner or later you will have a revolution on your hands. I think Brits have forgotten about it.

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4722.0

[Martinus]

I also recommend especially Berkut's and grumbler's posts in this thread, which call my prediction of social unrests in the UK as an evidence of me being an ignorant Pollack who has no idea about the real state of the European countries.

I feel vindicated. 

[Tamas]

It was not as spot-on as my heavily attacked predictions on Turkey, but still good enough in your leauge.

[Slargos]

Assuming this "rebellion" is actually based on economic grievances rather than a subset of the population that simply thrives on violent parasitism, your analysis seems to hold water.

Of course, similar (although far from as wide-spread or violent) riots have been taking place the last decade in the immigrant suburbs in Sweden despite having a very solid social welfare system in place.

[Martinus]

Assuming this "rebellion" is actually based on economic grievances rather than a subset of the population that simply thrives on violent parasitism, your analysis seems to hold water.

Of course, similar (although far from as wide-spread or violent) riots have been taking place the last decade in the immigrant suburbs in Sweden despite having a very solid social welfare system in place.

You are missing the point. Britain has created a system in which a subset of the society is effectively composed of violent parasites, kept docile by government handouts. The system (tailor made to the high flying elite as opposed one that provides higher employment but at the cost of operating less profitable industries) created a class of people who have no option but to be parasites (whether this is because they objectively have no other option or the dependency created by the system makes it psychologically impossible for them to have other options is beyond the point).

Now, if you cut off the handouts, they will revolt - their "moral" right to do so has no bearing on the assessment of the situation.

[Eddie Teach]

Social welfare doesn't alter the basic inequality of human society.

[Martinus]

To explain it in other terms, think of it as Civilization 4 set up.

Germany has a specialist based economy, with a lot of farms, mines and factories. In such economy you do not need to spend tax sliders on keeping the population happy, because you are achieving it through other means - buildings, specialists, wonders etc. However your economy is not as good in generating pure cash.

UK has a commerce based economy, with lots of huts and lots of "coins". In such economy, you have to spend some of the income on happiness because you just don't have enough output to have specialists and buildings keeping the populace happy.

If all huts are expanded to the max, then the UK-style economy is better - it has better income, better science, it can gold-rush buildings and maintain a bigger army than the Germany-style economy.

But if huts suddenly collapse (read: global financial crisis), the resources become scarce, while the German-style economy can carry on. If the UK-style economy then lowers happiness sliders to keep the country from going bankrupt, everyone goes into a revolt.

[Martinus]

Social welfare doesn't alter the basic inequality of human society.

Was this in response to my post? Because I fail to see any relevance.

[Tamas]

Assuming this "rebellion" is actually based on economic grievances rather than a subset of the population that simply thrives on violent parasitism, your analysis seems to hold water.

Of course, similar (although far from as wide-spread or violent) riots have been taking place the last decade in the immigrant suburbs in Sweden despite having a very solid social welfare system in place.

You are missing the point. Britain has created a system in which a subset of the society is effectively composed of violent parasites, kept docile by government handouts. The system (tailor made to the high flying elite as opposed one that provides higher employment but at the cost of operating less profitable industries) created a class of people who have no option but to be parasites (whether this is because they objectively have no other option or the dependency created by the system makes it psychologically impossible for them to have other options is beyond the point).

Now, if you cut off the handouts, they will revolt - their "moral" right to do so has no bearing on the assessment of the situation.

I am proud of you. Yo are slowly  working yourself out of your old socialist shell, and see the world as it truly is.

[Eddie Teach]

Was this in response to my post? Because I fail to see any relevance.

No, Slargos's. You wedged yours in before I got my reply out. 

[Slargos]

You are missing the point. Britain has created a system in which a subset of the society is effectively composed of violent parasites, kept docile by government handouts. The system (tailor made to the high flying elite as opposed one that provides higher employment but at the cost of operating less profitable industries) created a class of people who have no option but to be parasites (whether this is because they objectively have no other option or the dependency created by the system makes it psychologically impossible for them to have other options is beyond the point).

Now, if you cut off the handouts, they will revolt - their "moral" right to do so has no bearing on the assessment of the situation.

Maybe I'm simply not in complete agreement. Ever thought of that? 

If the situation is as you describe then obviously your argument is not only internally consistent but also very likely entirely correct.

I'm questioning whether this revolt is due to the real or imagined grievances you describe, or due to the explosive mix of cultures of violence. A football hooligan doesn't stir up shit because he's frustrated with his financial situation (or, well, I guess it's more than possible that he actually does and it simply becomes a "permitted" outlet for his frustration) and until you've shown that these people are motivated by their real/imagined grievances rather than the enjoyment of destruction and looting, I'm not convinced.