Check out the discussion at  http://www.temporary.org.uk
it addresses most of the questions you're asking.

Check out the new SA indy media web site ,literally only days old (www.sa.indymedia.org) It is one of the most exciting Indy media sites and it is so new. It is exciting and notable because the articles/reports on it, so far, are very specifically related to real-life grassroots campaigns and action (protests, strikes, anti-eviction blockades). Activist there seem to be making headway, in historically very difficult situations where the ANC has dominated for many years, in making links between what seem in many ways like anti-capitalist actions and the workers movement.
Something which seems to be a real weakness of anti-capitalism and the workers movemnt the world over this far and of the TACT web page which didn't really say anything new and was very, very vague on practical campaigns and issues to campaign around in order to broaden the movement. That is who are these 'people', the wider public? Is it everyone, certain groups, if so who are they, where are they, who do we want to work with, how do we identify them and the issues, all issues, how do we contact them, what resources will we or can we potentially use??

Reading the articles on the SA site (there are many but the quality is excellent) I could begin to see how many issues are connected and how they are going about trying to make ideological and practical conncetions between different groups of poor people in South Africa. I think, yet again, we can learn many lessons from the activists in South Africa.

I happen to be a bit of a leftie but I do believe in tolerance of other ideas and perspectives. The growing strength of the anti-capitalist movement is down to people who know and care not a lot about politics, especially political theory such as anarchism v. Trotskyism or whatever. It is by people who are disgusted by what is going on today.

Most people in the world suffer from racism, malnutrition, slavery, lack of housing, healthcare or education, but a small handful of people are fantastically rich at their expense. This same bunch of people are being supported in word and deed by world leaders who's democratic role should be to limit their power and redistribute their wealth to those who need it.

This isn't socialism - this is humanity - this is common sense ! Likewise with global warming - it is not some sort of Marxist conspiracy - it is science ! It is increasingly obvious that the worlds problems are either a direct result of capitalism going out of control. If not, many of the world's problems could be solved if it wasn't for the grasp "Market Forces" has on everything that goes on in the world. Even Scotland Yard [London police H.Q.] shares this view !!! Recently they said they have lost the war on crack and smack because of: "Market Forces" !!!

This is probably why SWP and other socialist organisations are just one out of many groups taking part in the mass anticapitalist movement, along with religious groups, politically neutral charities, even small businesses etc...

I believe in trade - I believe in division of labour - I even believe in fast food and comfortable trainers. What we must stand up against is the consolidation of more and more powers into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the abuse and violence these greedy people wreak on the ordinary people of the world.

has anyone in the UK thought about trying to develop anti-capitalism in rural areas?
it seems to me that, if you split off the hunting and shooting animal rights issues, a lot of what people from rural communities complain about are the rough edges of capitalism - closing 'inefficient' local post offices/bus routes/train stations despite the social role they play.
by lumping them all in with the "inbred, sheep-shagging, hunt scum" stereotype are we missing a trick - is there an opportunity to radicalise a part of the UK population that hasn't been radical for centuries?

(this is reposted here cos the duplicate posting is being hidden from the newswire)

Brief Answers
by Lampost 7:15am Thu Aug 30 '01

Ok I am 23 and I moved 3 years ago to Britain so it is difficult to compare with 10 years ago but it seems to me that:

1) There are now more groups (for example Reclaim The Streets) with more members each.
2) Your question should be, "Why is it that the anti-globalisation/anti-capitalist movement is claimimg more supporters all the time from the wider public despite all the negative propaganda against it in the media?"
3) The relative merits? mm the forming of an equal society and the preservation of the enviroment.

Any more questions?

I think the reason for the lack of growth of anti-capitalist groups and their failure to make links with the non-activist population is of their own making. A lot of the language and theoretical strategy sounds really out-dated.
No-one knows how/if a revolution might work against capitalism as none of have any direct experience of anything close to it yet. despite this the anarchists "know" any movement must be non-heirarchical (and not involve the SWP!) and the Trots "know" there needs to be a vanguard.
on the reform/revolution question sorry to sound like an old fogey but a quick look at recent history suggests the reformists have made the running. for instance debt relief, environmental legislation, improving labour standards etc. in contrast there has not been (as far as I know) a popular successful left-wing revolutionary movement since the Sandinistas.
short-term reforms can achieve positive changes, although they don't address the fundamental questions, surely we need a mixed approach?

Considering the major changes that have occurred in the economic and political shape of the world over the last decade, there's bound to be a time-lag while people adjust to it. Unfortunately, time is one thing we dont have, but if you note the way in which (with a few exceptions) the 1968 generation have capitualated to the center ground, its no surprise. They should have been giving a lead to the newcomers, but what do we get? For example, one current MP said something like (and I paraphrase)

"I did lots of protesting in the eighties; against apartheid and nuclear power. But politics cant do so much for young people nowadays because its working with business".

Was this meant to be ironic ? No. One shudders with disbelief that elected politicians can sit back and expect people (of any age or persuasion) to accept these banal utterances. O, Sartre, Voltaire, Malraux, where are they of your caliber now ?

I think one of the reasons why anti-capitalist groups aren't growing much is because a lot of the people involved don't want to join a group. I was one of the people involved in organising the uninvited stuff in Manchester (on election day) and of the group of organisers, almost none of us were members of any group. Some were involved in Earth first, but the majority worked with people they knew when they wanted to. One of the characteristics of the anti-capitalist movement is that it is breaking away from traditional leftie forms of organisation.

Um, not sure what you are basing your conclusion in terms of growth on???

But personally I think there are 2 problems:


1.) The average person does not give a shit about politics full stop... hardly surprising conhsidering the idiots taht have been presented to them day after day in the mainstream.

2. ) The language of the subject is self-defeating:


e.g. To the average person:

"I am an anarchist" = "I am violent riotous idiot nihilist"

"I am an anti-capitalist " = "I am advocated Eastern Bloc totalitarianism"

The mainstream has done such a marvelous job of reducing the language of political science to linguistic diahoerrea we may as well be presenting out case in Sanskrit!

We need to rethink our language. This not a question of denying our roots, but an admission that vocabulary is useless now.

A presumptuous complaint I often meet "you are quick to criticise, but offer no alternatives"

Now, recognising that the Establishment media does a good job of taking the focus away from why people are protesting and zooming on in to the violence, we should still be thinking in terms of making the alternatives a focus of the protests?

Instead of concentrating on what is wrong with the staus quo emphasise the benefits of the alternatives primarily?

And do it in a way that someone who has never been near political science can understand!!!

Put in a context that is relevant to their lives.

Otherwise, we will always be seen as loonies that are all bleating and no trousers.

You have to create to destroy!

Just my humble opinions...

:-)

Nearly forgot:

I think also it has to be illustrate HOW exactly our objectives can be reached. And clear that the objectives are realistic.

Let's face it statements of revolution in the sense of St Peterburg are anachronistic and romantic and just the sort of stuff that makes people that think we are barking mad.

I think specific attacks on legislation and siggestions for practical regulations are clear, realisable understandable objectives.

Don't get me wrong, I am no state socialist, and do not see any involvement with the state as ideal, but we should be at least highlighting VERY specifically the areas of their activies that we most desperately want curtailed.

Perhaps theming a portest with a specific issue that people can relate to ( understand ) and trying t avoid as much as possible the opportunity for the press to dodge the issue???

It's not an easy thing to do.

But basically what I am saying: People do not even really what we are trying to get across!

:-)

just trying to distill down a few points that have been made above. generalising a bit, but it seems that we are all making some similar points. this stuff is either blindingly obvious or deeply profound!

a) the "movement" would be more effective by espousing some specific targets and providing examples of what we want to achieve. these aims could also be better expressed as "common sense" than ideology. we might even consider advocating very specific legalislative changes.

b) political language is a problem. 'ordinary' people are put off/confused/misled by the language and labels activists use. but also we don't think the labels are THAT important. the real deal is what the movement/organisations achieve rather than how they describe doing it.

c) the number of "paid-up" members of individual groupings is irrelevant. many activists are not "members" of anything, not even the pub darts team.

d) no-one seems to be demanding a "revolutionary" line, rather we should take a pragmatic approach.

Here's a suggestion for one of those specific issues people are talking about - the Tobin Tax. In addition to it being a very, very good thing to campaign for, any discussion of it automatically leads to a discussion of the damage done by the banking system - most people think that banks just look after money for us, but any publicity for this issue will challenge that assumption, as well as the idea of free markets generally. Additionally, it IS achievable - it is supported by the international trade union movement, the Canadian parliament, the Finnish government and I saw only yesterday on the international indymedia site that the French government had declared itself in favour, a result no doubt of the large pressure group ATTAC's vigorous campaigning on the issue. It seems to me that we should learn from ATTAC'c excellent example and really push for introduction of the Tobin Tax. Here's part of an essay on it by Robin Round, printed in the New Internationalist.

What is the Tobin Tax?
In 1978 Nobel Prize-winning economist James Tobin proposed that a small worldwide tariff (less than half of one per cent) be levied by all major countries on foreign-exchange transactions in order to ‘throw some sand in the wheels’ of speculative flows. For a currency transaction to be profitable, the change in value of the currency must be greater than the proposed tax. Since speculative currency trades occur on much smaller margins, the Tobin Tax would reduce or eliminate the profits and, logically, the incentive to speculate. The tax is designed to help stabilize exchange rates by reducing the volume of speculation. And it is set deliberately low so as not to have an adverse effect on trade in goods and services or long-term investments.

How would the Tobin Tax benefit people?
By making crises less likely, the tax would help avoid the social devastation that occurs in the wake of a financial crisis. It could also be a significant source of global revenue at a time when foreign aid is decreasing and strong domestic anti-tax sentiments are reducing the ability of governments to raise revenue. In the face of increasing income disparity and social inequity, the Tobin Tax represents a rare opportunity to capture the enormous wealth of an untaxed sector and redirect it towards the public good.

Conservative estimates show the tax could yield from $150-300 billion annually. The UN estimates that the cost of wiping out the worst forms of poverty and environmental destruction globally would be around $225 billion per year.

Who will be taxed?
The majority of foreign-exchange dealing is by 100 of the world’s largest banks. The top 10 control 52 per cent of the market and are mostly American, German and British. Citigroup tops the list with a 7.75-per-cent market share and a 1998 volume of foreign exchange transactions which, at $8.5 trillion, exceeded the GDP of the US. These banks operate in their own interest and on behalf of large corporate and private investors, insurance companies, hedge funds, mutual funds and pension funds.

Hi, me again, re-reading my comment I just wanted to make sure I got across my major point - that the Tobin Tax is not only a very good, positive and achievable thing for moderates to campaign for, discussion of it also questions the whole basis of the world financial system and so is a useful idea for revolutionaries to push forwards as well. And it can be explained so that ordinary people kind of understand it. And Chomsky supports it - what a guy......

I agree with a lot of the stuff posted here about tactics, and the Tobin Tax would certainly be an excellent issue to campaign for. I just wanted to pick up on the comment made ages ago about radicalising the countryside. I totally agree - most of the problems faced by farmers are exactly what we are protesting against, but we are split apart by the media's projections of us (we think they're all fox-hunting toffs, they think we're all mindless thugs). George Montbiot has written some excellent essays on how globalisation and the increasing power/government support for agribusiness and supermarkets are destroying Britain's counryside. You can find them on www.montbiot.com (though I don't seem to be able to get to that site without linking to it through one of his essays posted on www.zmag.org). My grandparents live in the country and have done for many years - if it wasn't for me then they would think that all anti-capitalists were thugs, but when I discuss the issue of how the power of capital is destroying the British countryside with them we find ourselves in total agreement. This possible support from the countryside is certainly something the movement should be aiming for - just look at France with Jose Bove and the powerful anti-globalisation farmers unions to see what is possible.

Reading through the latests comments something occurs to me:

It's focussed, it has clear objectives and it is already relevant to the non-loiticised.. and it isn't really new:

Take anti-capitalism to its victims!

We are seeing a lot of lives devastated in technology manufacturing and farming at moment.

If a dialogue ( hence means listening to their concerns too ) were struck I am sure a lot of these people would respond favourably.

I'm not suggesting ambulance chasing, but rather an excercise in raising awareness that alternatives exist and to offer pragmatic help.

No bullshit about storming winter palaces and flogging the rich ( yes, you know who I mean )

Hell, as absurd as it sounds, perhaps even a politcial party targetting some fundamental prinicipals like the redistribution of wealth, increased democratisation of governement, and a u-turn on the erosion of workers' rights may be a good PR excercise.

I have no interested in the state as an objective, but perhaps the only way to defeat it is from within?

There is roughly about 50% of the electorate that are not partcipating, I am sure a siazeable amount would respond well to the news that someone is actually willing to put the man on the street before the inverstor!

A political party with the agenda to reduce the role of the state heeheehee! If nothing else it will provoke some publicity, and the theme of voter turnout is growing of increasing concern to parliament.

But yes, all-in-all a human, rational, articulate, pragmatic public face facilitating calm and reasonable debate of the issues and presenting clear alternatives is needed.

And keeping gobshit Trots at an arms length heehee!

:-)

"1) the anti-capitalist groups in this country, either anarchist, trotskysist or whatever, do not seem to have grown at all in the past 10 years, despite the emergence of the anti-capitalist movement. why is this?"

A lot of people have become involved with the movement without becoming involved with groups that are part of the struggel (ie. Anarchist Federation, SWP, Earth First etc).

I am one of these 'indie-lefties' myself. I guess whilst I fully sign up to the values of the movement, peace - justice - liberty for all, i'm not committed to any one particular tendancy within the movement. personally i think all tendancies bring positive (and a few negative) points, and our diversity makes us stronger. this makes me reluctant to 'chose' one group over the others.

But surely the involvment of people outside of existing groups in the movement is a victory for the movement as whole (and consequently for the groups involved)?


"2) the current anti-globalisation/anti-capitalist movement has been plastered all over the TV and press. why does it seem to have so little resonance with the wider public, despite the fact that the questions raised affect everyone?"

well although what use to be called the 'single issue groups' have their roots going back into the early 1990's, and the left wing political groups a good deal further than that, the moevment as a whole only came together in 1999. and in those 2 years we have continually attacked in the mainstream media (aka 'the anarchist travelling circus') [along with the odd favourable article to give the appearence of balance].

therefore i would argue that 2 years later, in the midst of natural establishment hostility, we have actual made pretty good progress. i think many people underestimate the amount of latent support we have from people who feel (for various reason, some valid - some imaginery) unable to takes risks involved in particpation.

this of course, doesn't solve the issue of how do we further penetrate the mainstream (espically the middle-age groups).

also remember that we are viewing this from our perspective in a relatively rich northern country. take a global perpective then you get a true view of our strength. of course, to maximise our potential we need to improve co-rdination between northern and southern groups (so total respect to the likes of the PGA)


"3) what are the relative merits of reformist and revolutionary approaches to capitalism?"

Take the movements arguments to a pure logical conclusion, and you end up drawing revolutionary conclusions.

i think the drawback of the revolutionary approach, is is glosses over the amount of death, destruction and disruption that world wide revolution would COULD entail. basically we COULD be talking World War 4 here.

Historically revolutions have also had a tendancy to get corrupted (England, France, Russia, China, Iran, East Europe to mention a few). I'm not involved in this to replace neo-liberalism with a totalitarian world wide dictorship. And this means no disrepect to those currently involved in revolutionary groups. Indeed , if a revolution were corrupted 'animal farm' fashion, i know you would be at front of those aiming to stop it happening, and would consequently be first up against the wall when this happend (hence the 20th expression "revolutions eat their children"). Its just history tells me that revolutions create ideal cirumstances for a Cromwell, Napolean, Stalin, Moa, Ayatollah etc.

I think the masses know all this the deep down (and the establisment makes sure they subtly get the point), and hence the reason they revolutions only happen in-extremis.

The above drawbacks are avoided by the Reformist approach. And by focusing on clear cut achievable objectives, Reformism is able to tap in a wider bloc of support among the masses.

Of course, the main argument the revolutionary can throw at the reformist is "So your saying your fighting nasty-corrupt-neo liberal-corporate dictorship in order to have nasty-corrupt-neo liberal-corpate dictorship THATS A BIT NICER!!!!"

its a powerful point.

another revolutionary point to the reformist is "the establishment will fight to the death to maintain their priviledges. Hence in the face of the coming supression of the moevment, a revolution is the only response that will acheive our goals and values. the establishment will brook no meaningful compromise/negoiation (except for tactical purposes) and thus a strugel to wire is inevitable"

personally i have always thought this to be a simplistic
argument. The neo-liberal establisment will react to the challenges we pose it. remember, this is real people looking to achieve most favourable outcomes for themselves. they will make pragmetic decisions based on what they believe to be in their own self interest.

i believe their reaction will follow the following path

1) ignore us (i think we can all agree we have passed this stage by now!!!!)

2) condemn us

3) look to co-opt the less costly of our idea's, in order to be able to tell the masses they are 'listening'

4) a) THE SCARY BIT. they will aim to crush us using a varieyy of tactcis in order to achieve (repressive laws, increased use of force etc. etc.)

b) if we still survive we are in position to hit back and as hard as possible to scare the living s**t out of them will the full range of tactics at our disposal.

5) If we surive stage 4 and are still a threat, they will look to cut deal that leaves as many of there privileges intact. obviously the stronger and bigger threat we are, the better deal we can negoiate.if they believe we are on the verge of threatening there very existance, the deal will amount to their surrender. then we can down to sharing our planet as a species for the first time in our history.

It maybe that we are not in a position to force there surrender, and we cut a deal that tames capilitalism (similar to the post war consenus in the west, when the workers were bribed by consumerism/welfare in order to persuade them not to support soviet communism).

If this happens, the revolutionaries argue that as soon as they feel able, the establishment will force back the gains we have won. they are right, and once again there will be a conflict. that if for the Future generations to fight and win.

They will only fight to the death, if they belive we will and can kill them anyway. therefore i logically conclude that IF we are still around at this stage (ie. We are on the verge of winning) it is very impornat to leave the enemy a way out.

That said, may be i'm wrong, and they will adopt a 'better dead than red' attitide, amouting to there collective suicide. sadly this will mean that despite all my reservations, the revolutionary approach will have to be employed, with all the attendant death, starvation (revolutions disrupt food supplies ot the cities) and social dislocation.

and if this happens, and the revolution IS corrupted (as may happen), it will be upto future generrations to take up the struggel to free humanity once more.

So in summary, my own position can best be described as

Reform if possible, Revolution if necessary.

The choice is their's, not ours!!!