Are the London Riots about Class Warfare Poor vs Rich ? As a

Post Reply New Topic

Are the London Riots about Class Warfare Poor vs Rich ? As a Ex Socialist I do think economic class is an
important issue but I don't hate all Rich People I just hate Greed. In my view you are going to have Rich People in every economic system Capitalism Socialism or Communism.


London rioters: 'Showing the rich we do what we want'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424

Unsure.

A lot of that stuff is being staged by interests trying to incite anarchy, but even here in the USA, the President is making his whole tenure in office all about class warfare.

No such thing as being an "American" anymore, I guess.

20 years ago there was Poll tax riots when Margaret Thatcher imposed the most obscene tax in history which means that billionares pay the exact same amount of tax as a common worker.

I don't get the impression that it's so much about rich vs. poor, but about lack of social mobility - ie, lack of any hope to make one's life better.

No; mostly about thugs and looters (some of whom are very middle-class, working people) deciding to tear up the town, wanting something for nothing and killing people in some instances.

Please don't take any political sides in this - there are none. It's a public order issue that was disgracefully neglected by the police.

looters interviewed

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sym84T19ftE[/youtube]

Last edited by psych on 15 Aug 2011, 6:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

+1. People who do want to work hard to get ahead in life are finding it harder and harder to do so. I am fine with having rich and poor if there is a lot of fluidity to it. Rich can become poor if they make stupid choices and poor can become rich if they make intelligent choices.

There is no excuse to riot, but for that destruction to happen there had to be some strong emotions that the rioters had. They felt entitled to steal what was not theirs and destroy what was not theirs. To ignore these emotions will only cause more riots to happen in the future.



It is hard to think you are included in a free country when you live in overwhelming poverty that limits your goals and aspirations.

Poverty excludes people from a free society. I base this from seeing a couple family members living in poverty with no opportunity to save their money to move out of the situation. No jobs, no hope, and an anger and frustration rising because of feeling trapped.

I think I understand how people could do such things. I don't agree with it, but I can understand. It is horrible but poverty makes people go crazy.

This is the blog of the guy that founded Class War (notorious anarchist zine/movement from the 80s)

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/

Agreed. If this were an issue of Poor v. Rich then you'd have bag ladies storming the Tower of London to nick the Crown Jewels.

Our problems right now is the fact everything coming out of the White House is anti-business. Oh did you hear the White House lost another lawsuit to an oil company.

Makes me wish you guys could get the SAS to clean up the trash on the streets, but that's just me being idealistic.

You don't need the SAS, you just need the police to do their sodding job properly.

I fixed it for you. During the Bush Administration, there were many pro-business legislation passed by the House and Congress and signed by President Bush. It did not help our economy. Anti-business legislation won't help either, but it is not the main reason for our problems.

Our problems mainly rest on poor legislation passed by both Republican and Democratic administrations of the past alongside a consumerism economy which collapsed on itself due to dangerous lending practices of credit.

There are already small riots happening in areas of extreme poverty in the United States like Chicago. People think they are isolated incidents, but I do not think they are.

Tequila wrote:

Then the police leave the non-rioting citizens to their own devices, unarmed of course.
So much for the notion of police protection……


androbot2084 wrote:


Same amount or same percentage?
Big difference there!

No you didn't fix it because it is a hell of a lot more than some, also your reversion to blaming Bush is really getting old. The housing bubble stemmed from the Community Reinvestment Act (specifically changes to CRA in 1995 under President Clinton), which forced banks to issue over a trillion dollars in junk loans.

Earlier this week I noted that I had changed my mind on the Community Reinvestment Act.

Contrary to my initial conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble. Once I realized this, I had to abandon my suspicion that the anti-CRA case was a figment of the rhetoric of Republicans attempting to distract attention from their own role in the mortgage mess.

So I laid out the facts and arguments that had convinced me to switch sides in the CRA debate. It was a long series of posts that generated hundreds of responses and counter-arguments. Felix Salmon’s response is here, Barry Ritholtz’s here, Mike Rorty's here, Ryan Chitum’s here, and Matthew Wurtzel’s here. All of my posts are here. Henry Blodget's earlier post on the CRA, with which I largely agreed until recently, is here. If you carefully run through these posts and the accompanying comments, I think you'll see that every argument raised by the "Defend CRA at all costs" crowd has been refuted.

For people with less time on their hands, here's a quick guide to the main points raised by the CRA defenders and the arguments that refute them. If I’ve left out any salient points, please let me know and I’ll add them to the list.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra- ... z1V9bdtaUE

In essense, Government policies from before Bush even took office caused this mess.



If you had paid attention to Glenn Beck at all, you would have know that these probably are not isolated incidents, in fact he predicted stuff like this. He also pointed out that certain people in the government probably would want stuff like this to happen.

Isn't he for gun rights?