England seems to be at the sticky end of one of the most complex situation analysed in the four corners of postmodern politics: understanding the young, the poor, the non-white males, and the urban sub-classes. How much more explosive a cocktail can you get? Looting, not political? Looting needs agents in order to occur, and agents are fundamentally political entities. Rioting for shortage of bread, for freedom of expression, for political representation etc. are legitimate actions. Rioting for consuming goods isn’t. Storming a radio station in a dictatorship is legitimate, storming commodities shops in a democracy isn’t. However, let’s face it, in a society in which participation is measured by the level of consumption allowed to its members (through income, access, and a politics of desire), being unable to consume is not that removed than being unable to vote in a society in which participation is measured by the level of franchise allowed to its members. When Tesco measures the democratic good of a new shop by the number of people “voting with their feet” when passing its premises doorsteps (rather than engaging with the economic and social questions raised by its opponents), then the looters have understood something about democracy in modern consuming societies. In all of this mess, how does one make the difference between a rioter (political catharsis) and a looter (naughty thuggish behaviour)? I am not sure, but through the use of the police we may see the hint of an answer. Facing rioters, the police (a public body, paid by taxpayers’ money) attempt to restore order in the streets and contain violence. Facing looters, the police (still a public body paid by taxpayers’ money) attempt to protect commercial properties and private interests, the throbbing nerve of consuming society, the dominant structure of modern democracy, the insiders and makers of social exclusion itself. Looting, not political? But let me add that there is even more politics in looting than meets the eye. Who does not occupy the streets in these illegal actions? Who feels threatened not because their goods are robbed but because they fear for their and their looting children’s safety? Who is asked to carry the responsibility and brunt of the disorder by well-thinking citizens and the political establishment all together in one voice? I can see the invisible other being scared, blamed, absent, these mothers rushing down the streets from their underpaid and precarious work (cleaning shops and financial buildings, serving cappuccinos) away from troubles, but troubles catching up with them in the discomfort of their home. Looting, not political? Who occupies the public space and who is excluded? What sort of order is being restored and for whose interest?

A last word on looting (which in no respect I support by the way). The reason why it seems to shock so much is because it seems unfair that some people can obtain consuming goods without producing the wealth to purchase them. In other words, looters corrupt entirely the dictum of capitalism according to which “time is money”. Looting is quick money. So quick that time becomes redundant. But this is the other dimension of a high unemployment and deprived consuming society: time is money doesn’t apply anymore when you are unemployed, so your participation is de facto negated. Overheard at my jobcentre last week:

‘- John, you said I had a 12.50?

– No, it was a 11.50’, replied John, the colleague who was able to understand that time, minutes and hours, were all the people that composed the days of a public service that wants ride of its “customers” (i.e. put jobseekers into employment). In the context of unemployment, jobseekers are not considered as people but as slots of time. And because time is (public) money, then people are expense. If these young looters (coming from deprived high-unemployment areas) are not included in the dictum of the society in which they are supposed to participate, then how can they contribute to it? That’s the conundrum that they are facing, a problem for which they have no solution and for which postmodern politics has no answer.