Skip to content or view screen version

You’re talking a lot, but you’re not saying anything – more thoughts on March 26

Cautiously Pessimistic | 30.03.2011 12:18 | Analysis | Public sector cuts | Workers' Movements

A few thoughts on the condemnation (no pun intended) of the "violent minority" and the idea that the black bloc damaged our image.

Since the media storm over March 26th hasn’t quite died down yet – my new favourite piece of journalism is the Evening Standard’s stunning revelation that anarchists sometimes take their masks off and wear normal clothes(1) – I thought it was worth saying a little more about the widespread condemnation of the “violent majority”, and particularly about the fact that you can only have a conversation with someone who’s prepared to listen to you. That might sound obvious, but I think it’s been ignored in much of the discussion that’s happened over the last few days.

The criticism of the black bloc tactics that were used on Saturday can be put into several distinct categories. First of all, there’s the idea that a peaceful march might have had some impact on government policy if it hadn’t been undermined by the violence. As Vince Cable himself has been polite enough to explain, that is nonsense: “No government – coalition, Labour or any other – would change its fundamental economic policy simply in response to a demonstration of that kind.”(2)
Following on from this, but making a slightly stronger case, some critics of the black bloc have acknowledged that peaceful protest on its own won’t change anything, but said that the violence on Saturday will have scared off working-class people who’d otherwise be attracted to the movement. There are numerous problems with this. Not least the fact that everyone – pretty much everyone, from the cops to the Tories right through to the TUC themselves – has been at pains to stress the difference between the main march and the violence that took place outside, as part of an attempt to paint anarchists as mindless thugs with no real political grievances. Granted, I’m sure some people will ignore all that and continue to hold the entire anti-cuts movement responsible for the violence. But anyone who completely ignores what the movement’s leadership says was never likely to actively become involved in the movement, so I don’t think anyone’s actively been alienated from the movement on that count. It’s also the case that this argument rests on two very problematic assumptions, that ordinary working-class people are attracted to peaceful protests and put off by violence. The first one is easily disproved: how many people do you know, other than people you met through activism, who went on the march? Obviously, where you work will have a big impact on this, so public sector workers and students will probably know quite a few whereas private sector workers may not know any (benefit claimants and pensioners are a different story again). But even for students and workers in the best-unionised parts of the public sector, I imagine it’ll be possible to think of a lot of your co-workers or fellow students who didn’t go. Clearly, there’s a large number of people who just aren’t that interested in the style of demonstration offered by the TUC. On the other hand, when considering all these claims about how violence alienates public support, it’s worth thinking about all the people who get in fights when they go out drinking, or watch boxing matches, or horror films, or action films, or listen to 50 Cent, or play violent computer games. There are an awful lot of people out there who, at least on some level, find violence attractive. That isn’t to say that they’ll form their political opinions based on their interest in violence, and nor should they; it’s just to say that they’re as likely to sympathise with violence as they are to be put off by it.
Finally, there’s the criticism that’s come from within the anarchist movement itself, from people who share our goals but believe the property destruction was an own goal that’s made us more unpopular within the movement, and so we should have concentrated our efforts on attempting to communicate with other people on the march. I have some sympathy with this line of argument. Clearly, trying to get our ideas across is vital, and it’s not as if we made no attempt to do this: I personally saw Anarchist Federation comrades out on the day giving material away, and I know people from the Solidarity Federation were doing the same. But I think to argue that we shouldn’t have broken off to engage in disruptive action, and everyone should’ve just concentrated on trying to give our propaganda out instead of doing anything that might upset people, is a fundamentally mistaken position. It’s worth thinking about the responses that those comrades giving anarchist material out will have got (I wasn’t doing this myself on the day, but I’ve given out anarchist leaflets at enough lefty demos to be able to generalise here): most people offered something will have ignored it, either out of hostility to anarchists or just because they didn’t want to be weighed down with any more bits of paper. Of the minority that took something, some proportion will have stuck it in their pocket, forgot about it, and eventually thrown it away; others will have read it and thought it was rubbish; others still, mostly those who’re already close to our politics, will have read it and agreed with it; and a tiny minority of those will have read it and agreed with it will have become more sympathetic to the idea of becoming involved in anarchist politics as a result.
Now, let’s think about what would’ve happened if the violence hadn’t taken place. Maybe a few more people would have been willing to give our ideas a sympathetic hearing, but not many. Almost all the people who are now angry at us were not willing to listen to us before the violence happened, so nothing has really changed in that respect. And, in exchange for the price of annoying people who weren’t prepared to listen to us in the first place, hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of people, had an exciting and empowering experience that left them feeling more confident about their ability to change the world, and all those people who don’t like what the government’s doing, but don’t want to line up behind the TUC leadership and Ed Miliband, got the message that the anarchist movement is a visible, viable and vibrant alternative. The two largest class-struggle anarchist organisations got free publicity in the mass media, from the Independent to Stroud News and Journal, reaching far more people than we usually can.(3) It’s impossible to say how many people may take an interest in our ideas as a result of that.
I think it’s important to try and communicate our ideas, but we shouldn’t have any illusions about the fact that, a lot of the time, it’s just not possible for this to happen. The ruling ideas in any society are the ideas of the ruling class, so, most of the time, most people will not be sympathetic to anarchist ideas. Of course, this differs from situation to situation, so more people in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia are willing to take part in radical action than in most other countries, more people in Wisconsin are prepared to fight for workers’ rights than in the rest of the USA, and in Britain it’s suddenly become possible to put together what might be the biggest black bloc we’ve ever seen, but these situations are exceptional ones.
If you ask most people what they think of anarchists, they’ll probably tell you that we’re a bunch of violent nutters – but if you asked them the same thing last week, they’d have given you the same reply, so there’s no change there. Outside of a revolutionary situation, revolutionary groups will be minority ones, not mass organisations. Recognising this should never stop us trying to build the biggest, best, most effective minority organisations that we can, it just means we shouldn’t try and chase after a fluffy populist image that we’ll never be able to pull off anyway.

References:
1  http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23936505-thugs-stripped-off-their-anarchist-uniforms-to-hide-from-police.do
2  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12874631
3  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/recriminations-fly-after-anticuts-protests-descend-into-violence-2254755.html and  http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/8939761.Local_reaction_to_the_anti_cuts_march_in_London/

Cautiously Pessimistic
- Homepage: http://nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/youre-talking-a-lot-but-youre-not-saying-anything-more-thoughts-on-march-26th-and-the-violent-minority/

Comments

Hide the following 8 comments

one point

30.03.2011 12:49

good article, hit the nail on the head. one point though; the people of wisconsin have been able to mount a very effective movement (with real and positive results stemming from it) without any violence or 'help' from radical anarchists. maybe this is something worth considering. i will acknowledge the difference between the cuts (which are a broad society wide policy) and the anit union bill (which is only one piece of legislation which is actually voted on in a legislature that isnt titular).

the anonny mouse


slightly misleading

30.03.2011 13:01

I was one of those saying that I wish we'd made more effort to engage/dialogue with the main demo:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/03/476899.html?c=on#c266993

I'm not sure if your arguments were in response to mine, but if they were they're a bit of a straw man; I was arguing that we should have been leafleting the main march AS WELL AS smashing windows etc, not instead of doing that! With the numbers we had it would've been easy to do so, but too many of us seem to be dismissive of people on the main march.

By ignoring the need for dialogue and solidarity we store up problems for ourselves in the long-term; apart from anything else it's easier for the state to repress us if they can marginalise and demonise us within the movement.

BB


And what's the carbon footprint of

30.03.2011 13:40

all that broken glass having to be re-manufactured?

black bloc = carbon clompers


Moderates

30.03.2011 14:26

Revolution isn't a thing that happens overnight. It's not a thing that - the orgasmic storming of Buckingham Palace and everything's alright in the morning, we've got a revolutionary society. We've got to realize that as things get harder - when we have a revolution, when we're headed towards a revolution things'll be harder still - And when we've obtained our revolution it doesn't stop-it continues on and on and on - It continues on until WE are the moderates. Right? When we are the moderates that's when we have a revolution. When ordinary people say "Anarchists? Ah, fuck - they're a load of fuckin' liberals-they don't believe in revolution at all.

the great unwashed


is it worth it?

30.03.2011 14:30

The police trigger this violence with a smallish black bloc to turn people against them, and it clearly works.

If more people took direct action either violent or non violent we might get somewhere, but the state knows this. and is worried.

oi oi


Expelling the silliness.

30.03.2011 15:19

"Revolution isn't a thing that happens overnight. It's not a thing that - the orgasmic storming of Buckingham Palace and everything's alright in the morning, we've got a revolutionary society. We've got to realize that as things get harder - when we have a revolution, when we're headed towards a revolution things'll be harder still - And when we've obtained our revolution it doesn't stop-it continues on and on and on - It continues on until WE are the moderates. Right? When we are the moderates that's when we have a revolution. When ordinary people say "Anarchists? Ah, fuck - they're a load of fuckin' liberals-they don't believe in revolution at all."


I think we are living in a post-revolutionary world, the revolution has already happened and it was a revolution in the art of consumption. The real revolutionaries, are the capitalist's and scientists. There is no scope for modern revolution in Socialism, its day passed with the arrival of the commercial empire of Globalisation. Every point at which it claimed revolutionary qualification, has been removed by the capitalists. Capitalism is subversion. There is nothing it cannot subvert. Capitalism is king, horrible to say this but it is only possible to say this as a result of Socialism's clear and obvious failure.

Socialism just doesn't understand the mental state of mind of the people under the commercial empire of consumption. It never has. This is where Marx is horribly inadequate in his understanding of how Capitalism works. He completely failed to understand what mental processes would appear after the success of Capitalism on a global scale. We can now see a global state of mind. Socialist's have no answer at all to this. It isn't even on their radar.

Time and time again I see anonymous comments on Indymedia by Socialist's denigrating the 'Middle Class' as idiotic, stupid, incapable of understanding reality. But this is more properly applied to the Socialist. It is a reactionary complaint and is more often than not, a Socialists way of lamenting the passing of their own relevance.

But that isn't to say that revolution isn't possible. Its just to recognise that revolution will not come with the continued attachment to Socialism. Socialism is a passing construct that has no relevance anymore.

As for the period of time required to enact a revolution. Long, insipid, revolution is what Capitalism is about. It is the Socialist's dream to have a revolution in one night, under a hail of fire and thunder, with the storming of the established state. That is a Socialist fantasy built on a fondness for the past in an era that was very different to our own.

What you are seeing now in Libya, is a revolution being conducted by the Capitalists before your very eyes. It has everything the Socialist secretly longs for, Guns, tanks, justice against tyranny and the massed weight of the people on the streets. But these are Capitalists not Socialist's!!!

Once again Capitalism shows its success and advertises to the world, just how easy things are for it now (although like most of its targets, Libya is a tiny nation unlikely to be able to fight against so many enemies. Libya has a population of 6 million, the size of London, up against a coalition of 504 million!!)

Horrible to say I know, but reality is reality.

Capitalismo Shiny Spangler


@anonny mouse and BB

30.03.2011 16:59

Anonny mouse - yeah, Wisconsin's an interesting example, and one that's too complex to fully discuss in an article that was mostly about last weekend's events in London. It is worth bearing in mind that things are far from over, and could still end with the movement either entirely defeated, or just channelled back into support for the Democrats. But overall, I'd agree that what we've seen in Wisconsin is a bit depressing for anyone with grand Che Guevara fantasies of leading the people to freedom, and very heartening for anyone who believes in ordinary people's ability to act for themselves without the guidance of a political elite.

BB - obviously when you're attempting to reply to a lot of different points, but still keep it quite short, you're going to risk misrepresenting people. But just to make it clear, I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, I'm totally in favour of attempting to communicate with people - if I disagree with you at all, it's just on a factual level, in that your post kind of reads like there was no-one giving out anarcho stuff at all, when I definitely saw AF comrades handing out their literature, and I'm sure there were others. But in general, I certainly wasn't saying that it's not worth trying to communicate with people, just that we shouldn't be trying to censor our own activity in order to make ourselves more appealing to some abstract idea of public opinion. Beyond that we should definitely still be talking to our friends, families, colleagues and anyone else, trying to persuade those people who think the cuts are necessary that they can be stopped, persuading people who oppose the cuts but aren't active to do something, and making the case for grassroots direct action to those people who're already active but put their faith in lobbying or voting Labour.

the great unwashed - I thought your comment looked slightly familiar, so I googled it and it turned out to be a quote from an Oi Polloi song. Not totally sure what that has to do with anything.

Cautiously Pessimistic


Foolproof scenario for fluffies, spikeys & others,realistic timeline & locality

04.04.2011 04:41

We got an idea that would combine fluffy, spikey and maybe the Muslim community in an effective action against the money being pissed away on the wars and not spent on human needs!

We've got decades long track record (in USA mostly, one decade long in England/Ireland) in both effective and symbolic NVDA and looking after our casualties. We have good contacts with good legal support and a few celebs willing to run interference fo us.

We have a certain amount of cred with some of the BB..because we, on ocassion, have "smashed shit up" military equipment (and have met aorund EDO trials and follow up actions).. and with the fluffies because we are pacifists. In England, we are usually marginalised due to the sectarianism of the left and anti-faith based prejudices...but that is really other folks problem and a question of how serious they really are?

Proposal has a reasonable timeline for mass organisation, diversity of tactics and it's a "no lose" foolproof scenario.

If ya can prove ya not a cop (someone we know who will vouch for you), can muster respect/tolerance for the various traditions people will be springing from, make contact....off the phone, off the net.....300 folks needed minimum, geographically accessible focus.

Presently, trying to make contact with BB, Uncuts - but pretty we're pretty busy until Easter. Have already made contact wih war veterans, peaceniks, one Muslim Gitmo solidarity actvist and they are impressed with concept.
Ciaron
London Catholic Worker

Ciaron - Giuseepe Conlon House, London Catholic Worker