The "revolution" that never happened: the London Riots of 2011, and the Russian Revolution of 1905

Last month I wrote here about the root causes of the riots that swept through London and England in general over five days in August, 2011.
I also recently read an excellent article in "Newsweek" here, assessing the effect (or lack of) that the riots have had on British psyche.

What were "the riots"? We can't assess their effect if we still haven't figured out why they happened. Prime Minister David Cameron said it was an outbreak of "criminality, pure and simple". In other words, there's no explanation necessary, because it was just criminal opportunism.
To an extent, he is is right that there was an element of opportunism: it was the protests and riots in Tottenham that gave the "opportunity" for anarchy to spontaneously break out across London and England in general. Some people seemed to have suddenly realised that if too many break the law at the same time (through looting and violence), then the justice system is incapable of stopping them.

To the extent that the riots represented an "insurrection", as Darcus Howe called it, this was a "revolution" of anarchy. There was no plan, no agenda - looting was the main activity, along with violence against the police. Everyone involved in the riots was getting involved either for their own personal gain, or to "settle scores" with the police. Order was restored only after a mass mobilisation of the police; justice was only restored after draconian and excessive punishments for meted out on those caught. So "the riots" were a classic case of spontaneous anarchy, taking advantage of a specific situation.

One historical comparison that bears considering is the 1905 Russian revolution; not in the sense that there were very many similarities (there are few), but it's worth considering for the underlying causes; the form of the "revolution"; and the aftermath, or legacy it left.
The 1905 Russian revolution is considered a side-show compared to that in 1917, but in 1905, the Tsarist government faced virtual anarchy in many parts of the empire for a prolonged period of time. The prime spark was the defeat to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, that caused a massive shell-shock to the establishment and the reputation of the conservative and authoritarian government. With respect for the government dissolved, various "revolutionary-terrorist" groups took advantage of the vacuum of perceived authority to wreak havoc and chaos across the empire: mass strikes were the most common method, though there were many political assassinations, some soldiers also mutinied, and this encouraged other disgruntled parts of society (such as peasants) to try and seize land, or just settle old scores. This was also where the Bolsheviks had their first stab at power, with Stalin playing his own role as mischief-maker in the Caucasus, and Russia's source of oil, Baku.
The government eventually responded, as an authoritarian regime does, with a massive show of power to crush the "revolution" - though much of the "revolution" was anarchy and criminal opportunism disguised behind ideology. The Tsar made some democratic concessions by granting a parliament, but the longer legacy, as we know, was the 1917 Bolshevik revolution - because the Tsar learned too little from the experience of 1905.

Zooming forward to 2011, we see a similar pattern of anarchy stemming from opportunism, but there are still underlying issues like there were in Russia in 1905. As in Russia, the UK has a corrupt establishment (of bankers and a corporate oligarchy) that disguises its self-preservation behind a smokescreen of decency and traditional values, but using the full force of the law to protect its interests if it feels threatened. It preaches these same traditional values (that it itself ignores) to the wider population, while privately being indifferent to their fate, and creating a situation that allows them to prosper but slowly bleeds the "lower orders" white.

Yes, Britain is a "multi-party democracy", but we also are the only Western power that still has a fully-unelected upper house, an electoral system that perpetuates a static political establishment of the same two parties (as has existed for the last hundred years); a value system that discourages a challenging of the status quo; and an economic system that has created the most unequal society in the West, except for the USA (which also has a very similar system).
So, put into that context, what's not for a self-respecting, ordinary British person to dislike? Yes, on the surface, the UK is a "civilised" country; our reputation abroad has come from the British culture that we have fed to the world. But this is a rose-tinted illusion that masks the underlying reality, as I described above.

From the 2011 riots, the British government learned nothing; because it was not listening, and didn't want to listen - just like the Russian Tsar in 1905. All the British government (and the media) wanted to say, just like in Russia in 1905, was that this "anarchy" was about people losing respect for authority and other people. The only way to deal with this was through the iron fist of justice. A year on from the 2011 riots, the London Olympics has dissolved the pessimism that had existed in society, at least temporarily. This has had the effect of distracting people from the underlying issues, but changes nothing.
The fact that the "anarchy" by some of the opportunistic "lower orders" was simply a mirror for the much larger "corrupt anarchy" that existed in the establishment was either forgotten or intentionally ignored: the disproportionate response of the establishment and judiciary to the riots was a response out of existential fear, to make sure that the "lower orders" would not dare to challenge the "moral code" that perpetuates their existence. But as I suggested in my article about the riots last month, if there is no morality at the top, then why should anyone lower down have any?
The riots of 2011 were a damning indictment of the moral collapse and corruption of British society; but more precisely, like the "Arab Spring" of last year, this was opportunism. Neither the "Arab Spring", nor the 2011 riots were predicted by the experts; and yet, the signs were all there under the surface - they just needed a spark. While the "Arab Spring" was about introducing Western-style democracy, the 2011 riots were about a more primeval and selfish instinct that had been unwittingly encouraged in the British psyche - if those at the top are living it large and ignoring the rules, then why not me? What makes those at the top "better" than the rest of us? If the London riots displayed an uglier side of British society, it was because British society had allowed itself to become ugly; because the establishment is ugly.

It took the Russians twelve years to make the Tsarist government pay the price for their ignorance and arrogance in 1905. How long will it take the British people to do the same thing after the "revolution" of 2011?

Stalin and "The Joker"

As a film buff, I was one of many people who loved "The Dark Knight", the second of the new Batman films.

Like many people, one of the things that most stood out from the film, apart from the excellent action and story, was the character "The Joker", and his distinctive portrayal by the late Heath Ledger.

I must admit that I found the characterisation of "The Joker" extremely fascinating, from a psychological and ethical point of view. This character was clearly very intelligent, witty and oddly charming; and at the same time utterly devoid of morality, killing, maiming and terrorising people whenever deemed necessary for his wider purpose.
His "purpose", the story shows us, was clear and methodical: to begin with, he fleeces the Mafia of their own money by robbing one of their banks, then offers his services to them to conversely make them subservient to them. Then, while ostensibly being on the side of the Mafia, he declares war on other rivals, the police, justice system and even the mayor, through a spate of assassinations and chaotic terror tactics (such as blowing up a hospital). Then, when the Mafia's money is recovered, he makes a point of destroying it.
The real "purpose" of "The Joker", seems to be to destroy the moral and economic fabric of society: to cause chaos and turn the moral universe on its head. "The Joker" is shown to have no social pretensions whatsoever: he makes a point of wearing unremarkable clothing, wears his distinctive "war paint" simply to make a point.

What makes the character of "The Joker" so intellectually riveting is that he so completely embodies moral collapse and an clear intent of upending of all human norms.
Which brings me to Stalin.

I recently read "Young Stalin", a brilliant biography and psychological portrait of Stalin's life from birth till the Bolshevik revolution. In an odd kind of way, Stalin's life is also perversely fascinating: who developed into an almost real-life "Joker" like in "The Dark Knight", part Mafia-don, part-revolutionary.

Stalin was born in Georgia, in 1879, in dirt-poor poverty, to an alcoholic father and devoted mother. His adolescence was spent in petty crime and casual violence, till he eventually went to a seminary to train to be a priest. It was there, around the age of eighteen or so, that he learned about Communism.

He became a devoted Communist; but what was more important was that he had the necessary skills that a Tsarist-era Communist revolutionary needed to prosper: cunning, ruthlessness, being in the right place at the right time, and the right connections within the "party" circles. He worked his way up by carrying out work for "the party" - inciting revolt, eliminating or discrediting rivals, robberies, smuggling and so on.

By 1905, when civil order broke down across the Russian empire, Josef Djugashvili ("Stalin" was a name he didn't give himself until some years later) was starting to become a major nuisance for the authorities, that year behind the greatest robbery ever carried out in the world at the time (which also kept the Bolsheviks well-financed for quite some time). For the next seven years, Stalin, on behalf of the Bolsheviks, caused chaos across the Caucasus, becoming their most important "weapon of mass destruction" in the region. Living in Baku, Azerbaijan for some time with his wife (though she died not long after they moved there), he flitted in and out Baku for several years, around Georgia and later up to St Petersburg and Moscow.

During that time, he was acting like some kind of shadowy underworld kingpin for the Bolshevik cause: evading detection and arrest by the Tsarist authorities, Macavity-like in being elsewhere when his dastardly deeds were carried out on the party's behalf. He would be moving from one safe-house to another, seeming to enjoy the thrill of the game with the authorities, putting on his exotic Georgian charm to captivate and bed yet another young woman.
Eventually, his and other Bolshevik's luck ran out, and he was exiled to Siberia for five years in 1912, but even here his time was not wasted: when not captivating a teenage daughter in this remote, sub-zero Siberian village (bearing in mind he was now well into his thirties), he was mastering the art of hunting alone, seeming to enjoy this raw aspect of life.

This time in exile in Siberia demonstrates another psychological aspect of Stalin that should not be under-estimated: like "The Joker", Stalin was someone who disdained social snobbery; he wore plain clothes his entire life, preferred simple living, often sleeping on a couch rather than a bed, and took pleasure from the harsher aspects of life. Although he could be charming, intellectual and witty when the mood suited him, he despised social graces. In that sense, his embrace of Bolshevism was as much a personal war he was declaring against a world he somehow hated: the world of luxury and empty morals.
This goes some way to explaining how a man who displayed so many characteristics of a psychopath, with his violent and crime-laden adolescence, went from being a trainee priest, to a committed Bolshevik, then used his ideology as an excuse for a shadowy reign of terror that he declared on the Tsarist authorities.

Released from exile just as the Tsar's government was collapsing in spring 1917, by now "Stalin" was a major figure in the Bolshevik Party. Apart from his years of service to the Bolsheviks as their Caucasian underworld kingpin, his humble and rough-necked background contrasted to the majority of the other senior party members, who were usually either from the diaspora, or aristocratic or middle-class backgrounds, many of them Jewish. In other words, by the time Lenin came to power in the Bolshevik revolution later that year, Stalin was the Bolshevik's "man on the street", a man who knew how to get things done.

Although the Bolsheviks were ruled by a clique of well-to-do rebels, they also knew that to maintain power, they had be ruthless in their operation. Lenin knew this very well; and thus Stalin became the man he most trusted in the Civil War that followed. Then, through deftly manipulating his allegiances from one clique of ministers to another, then back again upon Lenin's death, he was able to discredit his rivals and put himself in a position to succeed Lenin as ruler of the Bolshevik state.

The Soviet Union, ruled by a party that came to power through years of amoral criminality, assassination and terror, was now ruled by the man who made much of that criminality, assassination and terror possible: Josef Stalin: the "man of steel".
The question is: what happens when a modern twentieth-century state, the largest in the world, in fact, is ruled by a psychopath?
You may also ask yourself this: what would have happened to Gotham City if "The Joker" had won?

The answer can be found in my following article, here