I assume the Dissent speaker will be speaking in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the Dissent network, seeing as that's the way Dissent works and all that...

:-)

What a tragic panel of groups. pretty much sums up the poverty of the anti-G8 politics.

Yeah, I agree.

I had posted another comment in the same vein - but it never appeared. Just what the fuck are people with supposedly radical (anti[not just non] hierarchical, ecological, anti-state politics, i.e. Dissent) happily sharing a platform with the rest of these fuckers. And they wonder why there is a huge amount of cynicism around anti-G8 mobilisations...

Can someone from Leeds Dissent please explain to us all?

why are you so surprised?

The introduction to Dissent! - as far as i am aware - does not mention the terms anti-state, anti-hierarchical or ecological. The 'network' is simply a front for careerists (academics/social enterprise etc), and those who want to manage and control what they see as an anti-capitalist movement through highly bureaucratic, intensively meeting-based (read: a process generally dominated by white, confident, often professional, often male participants who can afford to move around the world or the country to this and that meeting) and a commitment to spectacular action which can be easily manipulated by those that wish to lead (no matter how discreetly) and looks much better on one's CV and in books about anti-capitalism than local, autonomous, affinity-based resistance. Getting the train to Bradford is a lot less exciting than being flown to Brazil to represent Dissent! The biggest thing to come out of the protests and the Dissent! process will be doctorates.

it is only a surprise if you think those involved in Dissent! are actually radical, anti-hierarchical or anti-state. i am not surprised that the SWP are wankers. ditto.

I'm confused - the group thats part of the Dissent! network in Leeds is the social centre near the market, the common place. Dissent gave the common place money for the building. The place is full of posters about G8 protests with Dissent! logos. The common place stuff is mostly about local stuff, and us changing things ourselves. The website says its a 'radical autonomous social centre'. Its well radical. The common place is run non-heirarchically, I say what I think is important in meetings, everybody listens, I can do gigs, art and stuff, whatever I want, join any of the collectives that do stuff in the place. Even tho' I wasnt there when it opened, and didnt know many people when I first started going. And it excludes representative political parties from using space, has lots of books about how bad the state is, and does ecological things like recycling. Its not about spectacular 'action', unless you think opening and running a social centre in that way is pretty spectacular, which it is to me.

It seems that the local group thats part of the Dissent! network in Leeds is doing all the things Kirsty says Dissent! should be doing (autonomous local action). The famous groups in Dissent! like the wombles are well radical too. Its really confusing - is Dissent! really a shadowy academic secret group (front) with some secret plan to enact so they can get better jobs????? Well they dont seem to have done very well at controlling their Leeds group! Sounds like a well wierd conspiracy theory, even for indymedia.

The common place is great, seems like Dissent! probably is too if the common place is part of it. They must be doing something right, as there's scare stories all over the media about them (or are newspaper editors in with the academic book publishers?). I'm dead excited about the G8 protests, they're going to be massive, and excited that I'm going to go with the common place, come back and do more great local stuff in leeds.

Dear Jo from Leeds

Wow. This sounds like an advertisement rather than a reply. But I shall take it as a reply.

Firstly, I have never been clear what the relationship is between Dissent! and The Common Place (and other rented social centres around the country) and I understand there have been a few discussions about how openly ‘political’ the space should be, which would seem a little odd if what you say is true - since Dissent! is an openly ‘political’ process. Dissent! is also not the only anti-capitalist (in the broad sense) activity going on in Leeds or elsewhere (and the G8 is not a particularly 'local' issue), so I care little whether the place is branded with the G8 and Dissent! logos or not.

I do not want to get into a huge debate about the common place. However, it is not true that The Common Place has always excluded representative political parties - it recently hosted a Love Music Hate Racism gig which is an SWP front group. As for having ‘lots of books about how bad the state is’, you would also find these in any right-wing libertarian library - or you could look at some of the anti-state positions held by fascist groups.

I am not saying Dissent! or the Common Place is some shadowy group, nor that it is a conspiracy - unless you are using the term ‘conspiracy’ in its sense of ‘to concur, to unite, to act together’. I would use this definition in relation to Dissent! and the Common Place in the sense of some people acting along a conspiracy of interest, class. And affinity. I am pretty well behind projects based on affinity - as long as this is honestly expressed and continually critiqued by those within and without the affinity group. I support working non-hierarchically, but am aware that just because we say we’re working non-hierarchically, this does not preclude the development of informal hierarchy or cliques which can manipulate and control projects and processes - sometimes thoughtlessly and no matter the good intentions of the individuals involved. I have been working non-hierarchically for the last 10 years and I have not always been listened to or felt able to speak, particularly as a woman and a woman without ‘status’.

Certainly, some of those most involved in Dissent! and the Common Place – that I know – are not, as I see it, without some conflict of interest. As I understand it, at least one academic in Leeds who is also involved in ‘radical’ projects was awarded quite a sum of money in government funding to study Leeds ARC and Dissent! Whether this person went through with it, I don’t know nor am I aware if this was openly discussed in Leeds. Others are currently undertaking various doctorates in new social movement theory and political sciences. You may not have a problem with this, but I am afraid that I am uncomfortable with this situation. Firstly, with the idea of people capitalising on my unpaid activity for their own career development. Secondly, the creation of a class of highly paid activist/intellectuals who, as I said in my previous comment, are highly paid, mobile, powerful and following academic agendas. Thirdly, it is my experience that due to the level of commitment such people devote to their professional work, they are often less able to do the 'grunt work' required of many political projects, including social centres and are more often to be seen at meetings than cleaning the toilets - this ends up being managerialism.

As for your comment about ‘they must be doing something right, as there’s scare stories all over the media about them’, may I refer you to Al-Quaeda and BSE. And, um, yes maybe you should read up on the relationship between the state, the corporate world and the media. As for the masses, yes, it’s really exciting to be with loads of people in one place. It is also important to keep a critical distance so that as you continue to do stuff, you can avoid repeating mistakes and consolidating problems ad infinitum.

I am glad you have got so much out of the Common Place. I too have had a few good nights down there. I have also had a really good time at the Brudenell Social, at the Chemic, at the Fenton, and at the many squatted social and info spaces that Leeds excels in and which are also informed by many of the principles you applaud.

Kirsty from Leeds
.

Kirsty,

I think that using the love music hate racism gig as a reason why the common place does not exclude political parties is grasping at straws really. I don't know how it happened as I'm not involved in the running of it but I gather that they were not aware that it was a front group at the time, and now that it is common knowledge they won't be doing that again.

I also think that you make a number of asumptions about the common place that are not necessary true, particularly regarding non-hierarchical organisation (stating that you have been involved in non-hierarchical organisation for ten years in responding to someone who it appears is just discovering it implies you have problems with the implementation of non-hierachical organisation too :-) (but in honesty don't we all). The common place have been at pains to implement concensus decision making and Non-heirachical organisation (through their meeting structure and orgainising workshops on it) and have, I feel been more sucessful than at least the first 5 or 6 Aspires were for instance. I'm sure that this is partly due to the luxury of time on their side but credit where it is due they have made a real effort and jo's original message is a testerment to that.

Lastly, it is my experience of the commonplace, and in particular of the academics that you refer to, that they do not shy away from grunt work (well not all of them anyway.)

While In many ways I dispair at the very existance of the commonplace (due to the resourses it takes up both in peoples time and the money it costs and even the image it can give of 'radical politics') It is slowly getting better and better and may by the end have proved itself worthwhile. But we'll see.

Geoff