HSBC's Stephen King compares today's intergenerational struggle with medieval unrest. He's got the wrong rebellion
Stephen King, the HSBC chief economist who rivals his namesake novelist with his flair for spine-chilling thrillers, has predicted a new nightmare: a Peasants' Revolt-type uprising by the young against the so-called baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964).
This is a rather puzzling comparison, as the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was in no sense about generational conflict. King's point seems to be that the boomers resemble the landowning aristocracy of medieval England in their refusal to accept changing economic "reality". Just as the aristocrats of old insisted that a population devastated by the Black Death should pay customary dues and higher taxes, so the old today still insist that the impoverished youth fund the equivalent – the pensions, welfare and healthcare of the elderly. In his view, then, the Occupy movement and the London riots are therefore merely the signs of things to come.
So is King right to see similarities between the rebelliousness of 14th-century peasants and today's youth? Like the rioters of 2011, the peasant rebels created panic in the capital, though they were much more of a threat to the state than their 21st-century peers, even seizing the Tower of London. But unlike their strikingly consumerist successors of 2011, they seem to have forsworn looting, insisting they were more interested in justice than theft.
Yet a more serious problem with the comparison lies in the confidence and economic power of the rebels. The peasants were well-placed to protest against taxes and landlords' dues because labour was scarce. Britain's young people today are in a very different situation: they must deal with an economy which is stagnant at best, intense global competition and prospects of high unemployment for many years to come.
This political and economic weakness may help to explain why young people in Britain are remarkably unrebellious, despite their grim prospects. Surveys show that the generation born since 1980 are much less radical on economic issues than the baby boomers were in the 1960s, and indeed are today.
A comparison with the last great generational revolt – that of the baby boomers themselves in the late 1960s and early 1970s – only reinforces the point. The economy was buoyant, jobs were plentiful and young people felt confident enough to protest against their hypocritical, authoritarian and patronising elders.
A better historical parallel, drawn by (among others) Paul Mason in his book Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere, is the "springtime of peoples" of 1848, when students made common cause with professionals, labourers and artisans of all ages to protest against economic crisis and political stasis, in a linked chain of revolutions that encompassed west, central and eastern Europe. This historical example is highly evocative of what is happening in southern Europe, and of what could happen further to the north if economic conditions deteriorate dramatically.
However the comparison does not support King's argument. Spanish indignados and Greek protesters have been supported by large groups of the population of all ages; they are not purely generational movements. Similarly, while young people are clearly doing worse than the baby-boomers, there are few signs of serious generational tensions in Britain.
King, then, is exaggerating the significance of generational divisions in today's societies. And stirring up phantom intergenerational conflict has become very common. The Urtext is higher education minister David Willetts's book The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took their Children's Future – and Why They Should Give it Back.
Behind all this generation talk is an effort by the right to impose their interpretation on popular understandings of the economic crisis. Desperate to avoid serious changes to our finance-dominated, short-termist, unequal economy, they seek to blame state spending on the supposedly pampered baby boomers. The centre-right find this group a particularly appealing target, as they can present them as selfish and self-indulgent liberal "60s" people. In this they differ from the far right, who prefer to blame supposed "welfare-tourist" immigrants for the country's woes.
There may be an economic case for adjusting pensions and entitlements, but to focus on the generational issue inevitably distracts us from vital structural changes to the ultra laissez-faire economic system that brought us to this crisis. And without those reforms, persistent unemployment may well bring youthful rebels on the streets. Our rulers should bear in mind that Downing Street is rather less well-fortified than the Tower of London.
     |
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.guardian.co.uk |
