Skip to content or view screen version

MayDay in MayFair

may day | 12.03.2002 17:58

This year sees us return to the traditional place of Mayday celebrations - Mayfair in London

This year sees us return to the traditional place of Mayday celebrations - Mayfair in London. Mayfair was once a teeming hotbed of fun, frolics and freedom for the working masses, in what is now Shepherds Market.

After having been transferred from Haymarket in 1686-8 the May Fayre soon became notorious for riotous and disorderly behaviour and in 1708 it was abolished, only to be revived again with similar results.

Building on the site was probably the most effective way of permanently suppressing the fair and by the mid-18th century almost the whole of modern Mayfair was covered with houses.

Mayday in Mayfair Mayday in Mayfair will be a fluid, spontaneous and exciting return to the Mayfayre, happening everywhere at once, without a fixed starting point or finish.

Four separate but intertwined elements of Ye Olde May Day will take place. There''s no advertised starting point to the celebrations due to police tactics of containing movement by violently imposing cordons for hours on end — which resulted in the entrapment of thousands in Oxford Circus last year. We can't allow this to happen again! We all need to take the initiative in Mayfair.

So create your own fun events, play your own games, come with friends, join with others, generate your own street party/performance/pavement picnic, everyday-reality-subverting-situation — above all keep moving and don't let the cops trap and surround you!

This way our festivities will not be crushed.



The 4 Elements:

1. The Travelling Circus A mobile, spontaneous, and collective performance full of jesters, jugglers, minstrels, show girls, gypsies, pagan sorcerers, ring masters, ring mistresses and clowns - reclaiming the roots and culture of mayday! Fancy dress, a sense of humour and the guts to shake lose and inhabit new characters and roles ­ the true spirit of circus culture - is the order of the day

2. The Wake for Capitalism A vibrant and luminous celebration of the imminent death of capitalism; a celebration of the new world waiting to be born; a resistance in remembrance of those incarcerated and murdered by capitalism; and a manifestation of our defiance as a movement to be labelled 'dead' by the state, media and politicians the world over post September 11.

Following the tragedy in New York and continuing daily tragedies inflicted by the war on terrorism the world over, many people, resident citizens and 'aliens' have been terrorised and attacked - the state whipping up a climate of fear to justify its new racist and authoritarian legislation and actions.

We say: DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED.
Bring your fear, bring your terror and exorcise it on the streets of Mayfair. Dress all in black or white. Don the mantle of death with skeleton or ghost masks. Coffins, tombstones - fluorescent a la the Mexican day of the Dead or blacker than black props and garb - you chose.



3. Carniball! A rambling, co-operative gigantic game with balls that reclaims the UK's precursor to football ­ gameball - in a carnivalesque way. Gameball was a mass multi-sided festival of play, enjoyed in villages throughout the country in the 15th and 16th century.

The objective of gameball was to keep the ball (or pigs bladder as it was then) moving from one end of town to the other. In the 17th and 18th centuries, people often called gameball get-togethers with the aim of pulling down the fences around enclosed land ­ common land 'privatised' by the gentry, the state and private landlords.

This year's version of gameball has many balls and inflatables (bring them with you), with the main goal being to keep co-operating, moving and having a jolly good time. Handballs and bounces allowed. Anything goes! Our goal is a new world!



4. Critical Mass Mass bicycle (or wheel barrow/horse and cart) rides are a traditional part of mayday celebrations today as much as they were in the past. Villagers and townsfolk often took to the streets and lanes, together, in a show of leisurely strength and solidarity.

Got a pair of wheels? - be it a bicycle, rollerskates, a wheelchair, a shopping trolley, or a skateboard - join in!

Get Prepared!
For Mayday in Mayfair to be a huge success we all need to prepare. Make costumes, banners, flags, placards, whistles, claxons and musical instruments. Get hold of inflatables, balls, nets and other props.

Make food and bring it to share. Look at a map of Mayfair and consider the possibilities. Contact us for leaflets and stickers or produce your own. Spread the word.

Get together with your friends and form an affinity group ­ a group of people you know and trust who will look out for each other on the day. Above all get planning as Mayday is fast approaching!

may day

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

Affinity group illusion

13.03.2002 18:01

The problem with the libertarian left in the country is, i think, this ilusory thinking about 'affinity groups'. Affinity groups are good starting points for a movement but they cannot serve to propel a movement forward. They are too 'elitist'. I myself am in a small affinity group and have been throughout the whole of this anti-capitalist movement; but despite attempts to break out of our isolation we have failed. This is certainly not for a lack of trying. The problem we have found is that the libertarian anti-capitalist left is full of cliques. People on this scene seem to be too satisfied with simply remaining in their 'affinity groups' and not forging new links. Yet if affinity groups do not cluster together, and I am not simply talking about some spontaneous one day gathering gathering as the author of this article suggests, then we will all remain atomised and fail to generate any momentum to the anti-capitalist movement. It will simply remain a movement for existing activists. Yes I think we do need more centralised leadership, but not of the Trotskyist variety. And as such leadership does not exist on the libertarian left we are being overtaken somewhat by the Trots. Is it any wonder then that after last years catastrophy in Oxford Circus (where there was a ridiculous free for all and no organised self-defense) people are not gravitating towards the libertarian left but towards the SWP/GR. I'm sorry to sound so pessimistic but I think we need to think again about the presing need for a new form of centralised leadership. Some of the German groups associated with the Black Bloc appear to have coordinated a very effective form of underground leadership -perhaps we could learn from this. Likewise during the Brussels protests against the EU summit in December the local anarchists managed to very effectively organise and coordinate self-defence actions.

nameless anti-capitalist


that is a load of bollocks

13.03.2002 18:30

I'm sorry but apart from the fact I disagree with you, some of your information is factually incorrect.
Firstly, the anarchists in Belgium in December did not have any centralised leadership, secondly they did not effectively co-ordinate self-defense, because there was noone to defend themselves against.
Okay the police attacked a group of people once, but it seemed very much like the group were spoiling for a fight anyway, and when the police did attack people reacted in the same way people always do when attacked by police - they started chucking stuff.

I am rather dubious of your motives in writing this (and especially as you call yourself "libertarian"!). Of course I am not opposed to organised self-defence (I am a Womble) but to say that to have it we need a centralised leadership is a load of wank. Look at what happened in Genoa, when the tute bianche leadership made deals with the police (which is a natural thing for leaders to do, as they become more personally (+legally) responsible for their "subjects") and large numbers of people got really badly hurt, and there was no real way of changing the plan to fit the circumstances (when the cops reneged on their deal)as the leadership had already decided on the plan for the day.

If you have leadership in organised self defence, the leaders are just all going to get nicked (a la Black Panthers), and if, as you suggest, we have an "underground" leadership, then it's going to be totally unaccountable, and practically Stalinist - even worse than Trots! (maybe)

red'n'black


Organised anarchy

13.03.2002 19:02

There are, of course, organised anarchist groups in Britain and have been for decades. Affinity groups have their uses but can become a clique (see ‘the tyranny of structurelessness’). Federal (not centralised) organisation is also necessary

Nestor Makhno


Reply to Red'n'Black

14.03.2002 20:36

Firstly you question my motive .It is as follows: I think the libertarian left needs to engage in a debate about the question of how we might adopt a centralised organisational element in our activities to help propel the anti-capitalist movement forward. By centralised organisation/leadership, however, I am not referring to the top-down hierarchical model of the Leninist party!!! Far from it! I myself, some years ago got (briefly) involved with a single issue campaign initiated by a front organisation for a loony group of Trots. I saw at first hand how a bureaucratic and hierarchical conception of centralised organisation is catastrophic for revolutionaries. I am therefore well aware (to the point of obsession) of the dangers of centralised organisation.
I do not think, however, that the Trots have a monopoly on centralised organisation. Put another way, different conceptions of centralised organisation can be envisaged. For example, local groups/affinity groups could federate together and a central co-ordinating body could be formed. Each affinity groupo could elect a delegate to this central body who would be instantly recallable. In this way the central co-ordinating body would not be able to dictate its vision to local groups but would simply co-cordinate the activities of these groups. It would serve to enhance the overall activity of libertarian groups.
Although this is a complex question and I have somewhat simplified things in my example given above, I still would maintain that we should strive to form some central co-ordinating body to centralise -in a democratic and accountable manner (as far as this is possible)- the activities of affinity groups. Obviously if we are talking of underground organisation then this complicates the picture somewhat, but i did not simply suggest that we should organise underground. Perhaps a combination of underground and above ground organisations would be preferable as far as this is possible.
Concerning the issue of the Brussels protest on the 15 December I participated in this protest and my impressions of this protest are somewhat different to yours. Firstly, you suggest that there was no co-ordinated self-defence. This I would dispute. I have attended enough spontaneous free for alls in the UK to recognise that the self-defence that took place in Brussels was, to some degree co-ordinated. There were people in the crowd -clearly with local knowledge- on the look out for the police who acted to direct the crowd towards streets not blocked by the police so that we would meet with the street party. In addition the section of the crowd who you refer to as "spoiling for a fight" did, in fact, maintain anadmirable self-discipline when the police initially blocked various streets at a crossroads that we had reached. The people in this section of the crowd had bags of rocks and molotovs but did not use them at this point as one street remained unblocked. It was only when the police attampted to attack us across a bridge that this group used its molotovs. Here is a clear example of the STRATEGIC use of molotovs. Self-defence in action.

nameless anti-capitalist


Reply to Red'n'Black

14.03.2002 20:37

Firstly you question my motive .It is as follows: I think the libertarian left needs to engage in a debate about the question of how we might adopt a centralised organisational element in our activities to help propel the anti-capitalist movement forward. By centralised organisation/leadership, however, I am not referring to the top-down hierarchical model of the Leninist party!!! Far from it! I myself, some years ago got (briefly) involved with a single issue campaign initiated by a front organisation for a loony group of Trots. I saw at first hand how a bureaucratic and hierarchical conception of centralised organisation is catastrophic for revolutionaries. I am therefore well aware (to the point of obsession) of the dangers of centralised organisation.
I do not think, however, that the Trots have a monopoly on centralised organisation. Put another way, different conceptions of centralised organisation can be envisaged. For example, local groups/affinity groups could federate together and a central co-ordinating body could be formed. Each affinity groupo could elect a delegate to this central body who would be instantly recallable. In this way the central co-ordinating body would not be able to dictate its vision to local groups but would simply co-cordinate the activities of these groups. It would serve to enhance the overall activity of libertarian groups.
Although this is a complex question and I have somewhat simplified things in my example given above, I still would maintain that we should strive to form some central co-ordinating body to centralise -in a democratic and accountable manner (as far as this is possible)- the activities of affinity groups. Obviously if we are talking of underground organisation then this complicates the picture somewhat, but i did not simply suggest that we should organise underground. Perhaps a combination of underground and above ground organisations would be preferable as far as this is possible.
Concerning the issue of the Brussels protest on the 15 December I participated in this protest and my impressions of this protest are somewhat different to yours. Firstly, you suggest that there was no co-ordinated self-defence. This I would dispute. I have attended enough spontaneous free for alls in the UK to recognise that the self-defence that took place in Brussels was, to some degree co-ordinated. There were people in the crowd -clearly with local knowledge- on the look out for the police who acted to direct the crowd towards streets not blocked by the police so that we would meet with the street party. In addition the section of the crowd who you refer to as "spoiling for a fight" did, in fact, maintain anadmirable self-discipline when the police initially blocked various streets at a crossroads that we had reached. The people in this section of the crowd had bags of rocks and molotovs but did not use them at this point as one street remained unblocked. It was only when the police attampted to attack us across a bridge that this group used its molotovs. Here is a clear example of the STRATEGIC use of molotovs. Self-defence in action.

nameless anti-capitalist