[KurtFF8]

[url=http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_1_la.html]"The Rebellion in Los Angeles:
The Context of a Proletarian Uprising"[/url]
(Yes it's hosted on Geocities but it's from a Libertarian Communist journal called Aufheben: link. It's just better formated and the footnotes are better on the geocities site)

On April 29th, Los Angeles exploded in the most serious urban uprising in America this century. It took the federal army, the national guard and police from throughout the country three days to restore order, by which time the residents of L.A. had appropriated millions of dollars worth of goods and destroyed a billion dollars of capitalist property. Most readers will be familiar with many of the details of the rebellion. This article will attempt to make sense of the uprising by putting the events into the context of the present state of class relations in Los Angeles and America in order to see where this new militancy in the class struggle may lead.


Before the rebellion, there were two basic attitudes on the state of class struggle in America. The pessimistic view is that the American working class has been decisively defeated. This view has held that the U.S. is - in terms of the topography of the global class struggle - little more than a desert. The more optimistic view held, that despite the weakness of the traditional working class against the massive cuts in wages, what we see in the domination of the American left by single issue campaigns and 'Politically Correct' discourse is actually evidence of the vitality of the autonomous struggles of sections of the working class. The explosion of class struggle in L.A. shows the need to go beyond these one-sided views.

Contents:

1. Beyond the Image

2. Race and Class Composition

3. Class Composition And Capitalist Restructuring

4. A Note on Architecture and the Postmodernists

5. Gangs

6. The Political Ideas of the Gangs

7. Conclusion

7 Conclusion

The rebellion in Los Angeles marked a leap forward in the global class struggle. In direct appropriation and an offensive against the sites of capitalist exploitation, the whole of the population of South Central felt its power. There is a need to go on. The struggle has politicised the population. The truce is fundamental - the proletariat has to stop killing itself. The LAPD is worried and are surely now considering the sort of measures they used to break the gang unity that followed the Watts rebellion. The police are scared by the truce and by the wave of politicisation which may follow it. That politicisation will have to go beyond black nationalism and the incorporative leanings of the gang leadership - another leap is required. In the multi-ethnic nature of the uprising and the solidarity actions across the country, we saw signs that the proletariat can take this leap.


For years, American rulers could let the ghetto kill itself. In May '92 its guns were turned on the oppressor. A new wave of struggle has begun.

Thoughts?

[Oxymoron]

I think it was very much race related, then any thing else.

[Dave]

In May '92 its guns were turned on the oppressor.

Korean shopowners were oppressing blacks? News to me.

Oxymoron is correct, this was a race riot, not a class riot. Poor white people at the time were calling for a massacre.

What leftists should be focusing on is the sinking fortune's of America's middle class. These people still have education, family, and culture, if degraded. Their declining financial status will soon turn them into a working class which may be receptive to leftist claptrap.

The bottom 20-30% of America you guys might as well write off. They're just rednecks and hoodlums.

[KurtFF8]

Oxymoron is correct, this was a race riot, not a class riot.

The article:

In L.A., Hispanics, blacks and some whites united against the police; the composition of the riot reflected the composition of the area. Of the first 5,000 arrests '52 per cent were poor Latinos, 10 per cent whites and only 38 per cent blacks.'[4]

Faced with such facts, the media found it impossible to make the label 'race riot' stick. They were more successful, however, in presenting what happened as random violence and as a senseless attack by people on their own community. It is not that there was no pattern to the violence, it is that the media did not like the pattern it took. Common targets were journalists and photographers, including black and Hispanic ones. Why should the rioters target the media? - 1) these scavengers gathering round the story offer a real danger of identifying participants by their photos and reports. 2) The uncomprehending deluge of coverage of the rebellion follows years of total neglect of the people of South Central except their representation as criminals and drug addicts. In South Central, reporters are now being called "image looters".

So even Newsweek, voice of the American bourgeoisie, conceded that what happened was not a 'race riot' but a 'class riot'. But in identifying the events as a class rebellion we do not have to deny they had 'racial' elements. The overwhelming importance of the riots was the extent to which the racial divisions in the American working class were transcended in the act of rebellion; but it would be ludicrous to say that race was absent as an issue. There were 'racial' incidents: what we need to do is see how these elements are an expression of the underlying class conflict. Some of the crowd who initiated the rebellion at the Normandie and Florence intersection went on to attack a white truck driver, Reginald Oliver Denny. The media latched on to the beating, transmitting it live to confirm suburban white fear of urban blacks. But how representative was this incident? An analysis of the deaths during the uprising shows it was not.[10] Still, we need to see how the class war is articulated in 'racial' ways.

Note for number 10:

[10] The video images of white people being savaged by mobs had little to do with the way people died. At least one person, maybe two or three did die that way. More whites, however, died in fires, in overblown squabbles and in misguided heroics. In a riot thought to express anger among blacks towards whites, blacks died in greatest numbers, and mostly in black neighbourhoods. International Herald Tribune, 12th April 1992.

So I suppose what I'm doing here for you two (Oxy and Dave) is asking for a counter to these claims/statistics.

[Dave]

I don't see how this proves the case at all. The whites in the area, in order to defend themselves, would've had to engage in activity which resulted in arrests. Perhaps some were "W*****" and made common cause with the rioting blacks.

It is further unsurprising that black and hispanic rioters would attack journalists of any color, such people are viewed as traitors, and blacks would call them Uncle Toms or Oreos.

And Newsweek is always desperate to avoid the realities of race...like most "bourgeois" liberal organs.

And I don't know why you'd bring up that blacks were the most likely to die. The rioting occurred in black neighbordhoods, so of course plenty of blacks were caught in the crossfire. Every time blacks riot it's mostly blacks who end up suffering.

[KurtFF8]

I don't see how this proves the case at all. The whites in the area, in order to defend themselves, would've had to engage in activity which resulted in arrests. Perhaps some were "W*****" and made common cause with the rioting blacks.

Ah so the whites that "rebeled" must have just been W***** and trying to "be black"? I'm sure you have absolutely nothing to back this up of course.

[Oxymoron]

Kurt how old were you during the riots?

[KurtFF8]

What does that have to do with anything?

[Smilin' Dave]

Focus on the topic guys.

I think the piece you quote about the truck driver (Reginald Denny) that was attacked tends to weaken the 'class war' argument. Surely a truck driver belongs to the same prolitariate/lower class as the rioters? Why then would he be a target? Just looking on Wikipedia we see a similar incident in which a Guatemalan construction worker (Fidel Lopez) in which he was attacked, and sprayed black.

Ruling out race also doesn't necessarily rule out the riots themselves just being mob violence and hence effectively apolitical.

[KurtFF8]

Did you read the full quote? The author is demonstrating how the media focused on this particular incident when compared to most of what happened, it was quite rare.

The author also doesn't claim that race wasn't a factor or that it was unimportant.

Ruling out race also doesn't necessarily rule out the riots themselves just being mob violence and hence effectively apolitical.

And the article deals with the politicization of gangs for example. Also the immediate cause of the riots was not the Rodney King beating but the legal response to the police officers involved. Obviously there was a little more to it than this one particular case, and even when King pleaded for the rioting to stop, it intensified. I would also like to point out how the Revolutionary Communist Party had "their hand" in it (at least that's how conservative sources like to phrase it). But I suggest you read that section.

As for it being "senseless mob violence", well you can try to make that argument, but you also have to address the correlation between socioeconomic class and where the riots were/who they were.

[Smilin' Dave]

Did you read the full quote? The author is demonstrating how the media focused on this particular incident when compared to most of what happened, it was quite rare.

I did read it, what I chose to ignore was the metric of deaths being a sample of victims. After all neither Fidel Lopez nor Reginald Denny died. Perhaps more black people died due to lack of access to health care? Without that fact the argument isn't particularly powerful.

While we are on the topic of the quotes:

The media latched on to the beating, transmitting it live to confirm suburban white fear of urban blacks.

Falls down a bit when one of the notable victims was a Latino. While not as often repeated, Lopez' assault was also filmed and televised. It should also be noted the media publisised who saved both victims, non-whites.

In a riot thought to express anger among blacks towards whites, blacks died in greatest numbers, and mostly in black neighbourhoods.

So were these really rich black neighbourhoods? I don't believe so, threatening the class warfare narrative again. It's also a point towards the mob violence explanation.

And the article deals with the politicization of gangs for example.

Yet one of the people who attacked Reginald Denny wasn't a gang member, but was noted as a vagrant who begged for money at the local service station.

Also the immediate cause of the riots was not the Rodney King beating but the legal response to the police officers involved.

Agreed. I should probably elaborate on the mob violence theory. The initial cause of conflict might very well have been political/racial/whatever. Indeed I read that the flashpoint was a reasonably peace public protest. But once the mob mentality sets in (with the associated diffusion of responsibility and lack of a solid goal), reason isn't necessarily present. In effect people and property might have been attacked in the majority of cases not because of a real cause, but some general outpouring of anger or just people getting caught up in the crowd.

but you also have to address the correlation between socioeconomic class and where the riots were/who they were.

How often to middle and upper class people riot?

On the racial diversity of initial arrests, were they all found mixed together, or in their own distinct groups? Any even more interesting study would be what they were all arrested for.

If this were a rebellion:
- Why this particular incident as a start point?
- Why didn't it spread? It seems to have been a local phenomena rather than class or even race related.
- Where was the attempt to replace the existing order of things? The introduction talks about appropriating property, but how was this a political act rather than theft?

[KurtFF8]

I did read it, what I chose to ignore was the metric of deaths being a sample of victims. After all neither Fidel Lopez nor Reginald Denny died. Perhaps more black people died due to lack of access to health care? Without that fact the argument isn't particularly powerful.

When did I claim they died? The point (as the author pointed out) was that the media latched onto two seemingly racially motivated actions instead of focusing on the situation as a whole.

And what does health care have to do with anything? We're not talking about the average deaths a year but deaths as a result of a particular event (the LA riots).

Unless you mean that the attacks by the national guard/military/police would have otherwise not been fatal, but you would have to provide some evidence of this of course.

Falls down a bit when one of the notable victims was a Latino. While not as often repeated, Lopez' assault was also filmed and televised. It should also be noted the media publisised who saved both victims, non-whites.

How does this fall apart because of that? Yes there were indeed more than "blacks and whites" involved and the media did not ignore that at all. The point is that the media did in fact use cases of "black on white" violence to continue racial stereotypes. And perhaps as you point out other racial stereotypes as well.

And the article does indeed talk about the fact that racially motivated violence was generally prevented by the "race" engaging in the racially motivated violence.

So were these really rich black neighbourhoods? I don't believe so, threatening the class warfare narrative again. It's also a point towards the mob violence explanation.

Where does the article claim they were rich black neighborhoods? If this is your assumption (which is not what the article is claiming if I'm correct) then the rest of your comment is built on a strawman.

Yet one of the people who attacked Reginald Denny wasn't a gang member, but was noted as a vagrant who begged for money at the local service station.

And your point?

The initial cause of conflict might very well have been political/racial/whatever. Indeed I read that the flashpoint was a reasonably peace public protest. But once the mob mentality sets in (with the associated diffusion of responsibility and lack of a solid goal), reason isn't necessarily present. In effect people and property might have been attacked in the majority of cases not because of a real cause, but some general outpouring of anger or just people getting caught up in the crowd.

But if you talk to most of those involved, they had motivations for their actions, it wasn't just "senseless stealing and violence".

For the mob mentality theory to accurately describe what went down, the actions by the "mob" would have to have been much more random and unmotivated, but instead they were a bit more coordinated and with purpose.

I suggest listening to this interview by a gang member to give an alternative perspective:

How often to middle and upper class people riot?

I would imagine the data shows that they riot less.

Why this particular incident as a start point?

Most events have immediate/particular causes. World War One had the immediate cause of the Arch Duke being assassinated, but most agree that it likely would have happened anyway.

- Why didn't it spread? It seems to have been a local phenomena rather than class or even race related.

Spread beyond LA? This was a riot within the city, just because it didn't spread across the whole country doesn't mean that it wasn't a class riot. That would be like saying "well the Haymarket riots didn't spread across the country, so it must have been some local issue, not a class issue"

- Where was the attempt to replace the existing order of things? The introduction talks about appropriating property, but how was this a political act rather than theft?

It would be hard to argue that it wasn't an attempt to replace the existing order of things. The problem of course is that it failed and was repressed, as the Paris Commune was. The nature of rebellion isn't judged solely on its success or failure.

And appropriation of property as political rather than "plain theft":
The assumption here is that the majority of those living in those areas were hit very hard with their economic situation and thus didn't have access to all of the commodities that the minority of people in the city had access too, so they decided to take matters into their own hands. I think the author probably makes this argument better than I'm doing right here however.

[Potemkin]

What leftists should be focusing on is the sinking fortune's of America's middle class. These people still have education, family, and culture, if degraded. Their declining financial status will soon turn them into a working class which may be receptive to leftist claptrap.

Quoted for truth (apart from the "claptrap" bit, of course). If a truly revolutionary situation were ever to develop in American society, it would be as a direct result of the proletarianisation of the "middle classes". This process of proletarianisation is, as Marx pointed out, the necessary precursor to the overthrow of capitalism. An expanding middle class is bad news to leftists; a shrinking middle class (which we now have) is good news. Rioting lumpenproletarians does not a revolution make.

[R_G]

Trying to look back and analyze it, it seems the event re-iterated that uneducated blacks are a danger to general society.

Yep, truth is a bitch ain't it?

[bayano]

I think it is both. Riots are often both. Whites who join Black uprisings get warned but usually not touched. There are plenty of cases in the LA rebellion where Blacks attacked working class whites, and also where people of many colors joined together in revolt. It wasn't clean, and it certainly was at least partly racial. But it was also class.

It was also, though, arguably not the most serious urban uprising of that century. There were a lot, and it shows a lack of historical perspective to say it was the most serious, even if the death toll was among the highest and the damage was very large.

[Nets]

Kurt, I'm curious what your analysis of the Crown Heights riots in 1991 would be.

[Smilin' Dave]

When did I claim they died?

You didn't, I raised were an example of where the author's use of statistics fails.

The point (as the author pointed out) was that the media latched onto two seemingly racially motivated actions instead of focusing on the situation as a whole.

And as I pointed out, he seems to be ignoring the lack of class related violence demonstrated.

And what does health care have to do with anything?

Everything when you figuring out which casualties were just injured and which ones died. A serious injury won't necessarily kill someone if they get quick and good quality medical care. So again the point is counting the dead isn't a good measure. Why shouldn't the quality of health cover for the lower class be an issue in a Marxist analysis of a class war?

How does this fall apart because of that?

The author talks about middle class white suburbanites being in fear, yet the victim (the viewers proxy, the subject of our empathy etc.) in this case wasn't white or as far as I know, middle class.

Where does the article claim they were rich black neighborhoods? If this is your assumption (which is not what the article is claiming if I'm correct) then the rest of your comment is built on a strawman.

Speaking of strawmen when you ask questions like this I'm not sure if you just don't understand, or if you are trying to avoid the point. If they were poor neighbourhoods, it doesn't make sense for an uprising of the poor to attack them, does it? Again, the author's logic seems defective.

And your point?

It blurs the gangs = political militia message when a notable perpetrator isn't a gang member.

But if you talk to most of those involved, they had motivations for their actions, it wasn't just "senseless stealing and violence".

Most people will claim motiviation when confronted with their actions after the fact. If the police (or a critical media) questioned you about a crime, would you happily admit you just did it for personal profit, or because everyone did it? Never mind that these processes might not have been the result of conscious decisions, but almost instinctual.

For the mob mentality theory to accurately describe what went down, the actions by the "mob" would have to have been much more random and unmotivated, but instead they were a bit more coordinated and with purpose.

I would say the bulk of violence wasn't coordinated in the LA riots, but I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. This is actually where a breakdown of who was charged with what would be so interesting, because you could better demonstrate what the majority were doing, what kind of people were doing it and so forth.

I would imagine the data shows that they riot less.

So finding a socioeconomic context in rioting is like finding moisture on a duck. What the author does not prove, is that socioeconomic factors were not just a prime factor, but that this was a full blown rebellion.

World War One had the immediate cause of the Arch Duke being assassinated, but most agree that it likely would have happened anyway.

I think using WWI as a case study for this 'rebellion' might be using the wrong example. For example most historians agree will agree that the parties that started WWI didn't do so in a deliberate fashion but were pressured by internal and external factors (alliances, tyranny of timetables etc.), where as the author seems to be pushing a politically motivated act, which I would have thought suggests it was quite deliberate.

This was a riot within the city, just because it didn't spread across the whole country doesn't mean that it wasn't a class riot.

So it was class war that didn't prompt much class support? Or maybe it wasn't class related in the first place.

That would be like saying "well the Haymarket riots didn't spread across the country, so it must have been some local issue, not a class issue".

What makes you think Haymarket was really class warfare in the first place?

It would be hard to argue that it wasn't an attempt to replace the existing order of things. The problem of course is that it failed and was repressed, as the Paris Commune was. The nature of rebellion isn't judged solely on its success or failure.

If there was a failed attempt, rather than no attempt of the sort at all, you should be able to show me what they were trying to replace the existing order with.

The assumption here is that the majority of those living in those areas were hit very hard with their economic situation and thus didn't have access to all of the commodities that the minority of people in the city had access too, so they decided to take matters into their own hands. I think the author probably makes this argument better than I'm doing right here however.

So as long the offending party needs it, theft is political? Sorry, but that's fairly weak reasoning. They could just as easily been taking advantage of the riots to enrich themselves.

The author's basic error seems to be starting from a Communist perspective, rather than arrive at this conclusion through analysis. He then aims to disprove the standard narrative (which I agree is too simplistic), but assumes that this alone will prove his point of view was right by process of elimination.

[KurtFF8]

Rioting lumpenproletarians does not a revolution make.

Indeed, but this riot I would say can't be reduced to a lumpenproletarian riot. It certainly extended to more than unemployed rioters and included many of the employed working class simply by the shear magnitude of the riot itself.

Kurt, I'm curious what your analysis of the Crown Heights riots in 1991 would be.

I'm actually not that familiar with the Crown Heights riots, I would have to look them up.

Everything when you figuring out which casualties were just injured and which ones died. A serious injury won't necessarily kill someone if they get quick and good quality medical care. So again the point is counting the dead isn't a good measure. Why shouldn't the quality of health cover for the lower class be an issue in a Marxist analysis of a class war?

Alright I wasn't sure what exactly you meant. I would indeed imagine that the given situation that many of the deaths could have been avoided, I don't see where you're going with this though.

The author talks about middle class white suburbanites being in fear, yet the victim (the viewers proxy, the subject of our empathy etc.) in this case wasn't white or as far as I know, middle class.

You're taking the authors argument about the Denny case and applying it to the Lopez case here. And both cases other blacks (who were of similar socioeconomic status I would imagine) prevented the beatings from turning into fatal beatings.

f they were poor neighbourhoods, it doesn't make sense for an uprising of the poor to attack them, does it?

I think you're going to have to clarify your point here, I'm not sure I understand where you're going with it.

It blurs the gangs = political militia message when a notable perpetrator isn't a gang member.

Again I still don't see your point here. And you're also overemphasizing one beating when there was much more going on.

Most people will claim motiviation when confronted with their actions after the fact. If the police (or a critical media) questioned you about a crime, would you happily admit you just did it for personal profit, or because everyone did it? Never mind that these processes might not have been the result of conscious decisions, but almost instinctual.

We're not talking about the looters responses in the media here, but an overall analysis of why such a thing happened in the first place. And I'm not even arguing (nor is the author) that everyone involved had an underlying political motivation anyway.

So finding a socioeconomic context in rioting is like finding moisture on a duck. What the author does not prove, is that socioeconomic factors were not just a prime factor, but that this was a full blown rebellion.

I don't understand your point here, it's quite easy to find the socioeconomic context of those who were involved in riots, all one has to do is compare the areas of the riots and the populations of those areas.

I think using WWI as a case study for this 'rebellion' might be using the wrong example. For example most historians agree will agree that the parties that started WWI didn't do so in a deliberate fashion but were pressured by internal and external factors (alliances, tyranny of timetables etc.), where as the author seems to be pushing a politically motivated act, which I would have thought suggests it was quite deliberate.

I suppose we have different interpretations of what the author is saying here then. I don't think that the author is arguing that the riots themselves were purely politically motivated but instead that the nature of the riots themselves is important in class struggle. The immediate causes of both the riots and WWI were political and intentional, but the consequences of both were due to external factors (WWI: the militarization of the West and where Capital had been moving, in LA '92: the continued deterioration of the economy and oppression of the lower classes)

So it was class war that didn't prompt much class support? Or maybe it wasn't class related in the first place.

Again it would be like saying that any strike in a specific city that doesn't spread to other cities is thus no longer a class related effort, which is obviously false.

The riots came in the context of LA, so the same expressions of political relations would be irrelevant in Miami for example and would look different, given the different contexts. That doesn't mean that class isn't the underlying important factor.

What makes you think Haymarket was really class warfare in the first place?

If you want to make an argument that the event that lead to the creation of International Workers Day wasn't class conflict then I suggest you make another thread arguing that point and we can go into it there. But that's quite a claim.

If there was a failed attempt, rather than no attempt of the sort at all, you should be able to show me what they were trying to replace the existing order with.

How? The attempts I listed failed.

So as long the offending party needs it, theft is political? Sorry, but that's fairly weak reasoning. They could just as easily been taking advantage of the riots to enrich themselves.

But such a view is simplistic and ignores the context of those who were "stealing" in the first place.

The author's basic error seems to be starting from a Communist perspective, rather than arrive at this conclusion through analysis. He then aims to disprove the standard narrative (which I agree is too simplistic), but assumes that this alone will prove his point of view was right by process of elimination.

It is a different analysis altogether. Just because you disagree with the method of analysis doesn't make it any less valid. The author also doesn't just debunk the "official" account, but instead explains what actually happened through a specific analysis.