Skip to content or view screen version

Class War in Manchester & Manhattan

The Art of War | 01.10.2011 21:40 | Public sector cuts | Workers' Movements

Rather than totally ignoring anti-capitalist protest as you might imagine, the front page of the right-wing Daily Mail newspaper's website is reporting another week of protest against Wall Street, and asking whether these demos represent a "middle-class uprising"? The Arab Spring was characterised by its broadly middle-class make-up, and research shows that over 70% of British people no longer see themselves as working-class.....



Rather than totally ignoring anti-capitalist protest as you might imagine, the front page of the right-wing Daily Mail newspaper's website is (on 1st Oct 2011) reporting yet another week of protest against Wall Street, and, even better, asking whether these demonstrations represent a "middle-class uprising"? The article says that "New York City police are bracing for a weekend of mayhem in lower Manhattan, with thousands expected to risk arrest as the Occupy Wall Street protest moves into its 3rd straight week". Although the protest is taking place in the USA, the fact that this question is even being asked by one of the UK's right-wing tabloids is significant, particularly on the eve of protests against the Tory conference, and particularly in terms of influencing The Daily Mail's 2,050,132 accredited UK circulation.

Right-wing Daily Telegraph correspondent Charles Moore recently wrote that "The rich run a global system that allows them to accumulate capital and pay the lowest possible price for labour. The freedom that results applies only to them. The many simply have to work harder, in conditions that grow ever more insecure, to enrich the few. Democratic politics, which purports to enrich the many, is actually in the pocket of those bankers, media barons and other moguls who run and own everything". In 2010, The Daily Mail admitted that in London the gap between rich and poor is worse than at any time since the abolition of slavery, and admitted that more than a 3rd of British land is still owned by "a tiny group of aristocrats".

Reports of this nature reach thousands of times more people than the radical media, actively preaching anti-capitalist messages to the UN-coverted; and, on account of their NOT coming from radical sources, such criticisms carry much more weight with those members of the public who read such newspapers (similarly, although written for a left-wing tabloid, an article in The Daily Mirror which accused the Tories of wanting to "destroy" our NHS was all the more important for having been written by hard-right Tory politician Norman Tebbit).

Radical agitators are reminded that the Arab Spring was characterised by its broadly (though by no means exclusively) middle-class make-up, and reminded that recent research shows that over 70% of British people no longer see themselves as working-class. In context, the purpose of this article is to respectfully ask radical agitators not to squander god-given opportunities with displays of the extremist banners etc that remind many members of the public why it is they feel they have no sympathy with progressive politics.

Despite the obvious reality of the class war that's waged by capitalism against society, decades of reactive class-struggle activism have done more harm than good to radical politics, and some radical groups are an ASSET to the establishment, in terms of how the right-wing media manipulate perceptions of political extremism to drive a wedge between progressive activists and other members of the public. The way radicalism will grow is not by using protests to fly red and/or black flags and flog ideologically dogmatic newspapers - radicalism will grow if our movement is able to deliver successful RESULTS, and those results depend on our not alienating other members of the public.

As argued in recent posts, the Anti-Cuts movement will succeed if it pursues strategies that expose war-mongering capitalists as the real extremists, that defend truly democratic principles, and that make our movement genuinely inclusive. The movement will fail if it is perceived to be attacking democracy and if we're the ones the system's able to smear as extremists. This post is not arguing that people should roll over and beg if they're attacked by the police, or arguing that people should limit their activism to signing petitions. This post is arguing that activists should think strategically. If our movement succeeds, the long-term rewards for domestic radicalism will be immense. If it fails, the consequences will be disastrous.

The Anti-Cuts movement will succeed if it defends true democracy...
 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/485130.html

State strategies to wreck UK Uncut, Dale Farm & March 26 etc...
 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/485095.html

Total Failure of Class War Politics in Britain...
 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/485338.html

Cop Advisors Admit Anti-Cuts Protests Can Win...
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/05/478790.html

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044001/Occupy-Wall-Street-Thousands-protesters-descend-Manhattan-police-gear-weekend-mayhem--start-middle-class-uprising.html

The Art of War

Additions

Comments

Hide the following 12 comments

PS - Mark Kennedy

01.10.2011 21:58

It costs the State hundreds of thousands of pounds to run an agent-provocateur like Mark Kennedy, and to pay his handlers and back-up, it costs the State almost nothing to post extremist shit on Indymedia

"In war there are moves that you get right and there are wrong moves, there are careful combatants and those who get carried away with enthusiasm and become an easy target for the enemy" Errico Malatesta

AoW


Definitions

01.10.2011 23:02

While I agree that this post has some interesting and useful points to make, it does not address the bigger questions around our current situation. The writer uses the terms "middle class" and "democracy" in order to seem non-threatening. And supposedly 70% of us define ourselves as "middle class", but on whose terms? According to the BBC (2007), 57% of us define ourselves as working class ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6295743.stm). But the truth is that nearly all of us don't even understand what the terms working class or middle class means. If we define working class as those who must live by selling their labour, then 57% seems like a conservative estimate, and the notion that 70% of us are middle class is laughable.

Similarly, the writer tells us we must be democratic. But what is democracy? Is it just voting every five years, or is it more than that. What we have seen in recent years, especially since the revelations of Wikileaks, is just what farce parliamentary democracy is. Although we have all known this all along, we now have actual proof. The mainstream media is all too often in the pockets of corporate interests and out of touch with ordinary people.

The writer also claims that the uprising in Egypt was "broadly middle class". This follows the BBC line of thinking, while ignoring the vital role played by trade unionists, canal workers and the urban poor. Egypt is a big country, and while Tahrir Sq. stole the show, the revolution carried all social classes with it, and was the result of years of dedicated work by Egypt's opposition of trade unionists, poor and young people, and was not the "Facebook revolution" so loved by the western media.

The most dangerous likelihood of any "middle class" revolution is that things will just carry on as they are.

“We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view.” Mao Zedong

Webster


Thanks for the feedback

02.10.2011 00:03

Webster you're right that to some extent this post doesn't address the "bigger" questions, as for instance it quotes research that says 71% of Britons self-identify as being middle-class, without analyzing what it means to be middle or working-class. I'm sure we could debate that issue for years, the protest against the Tory conference however starts in less than 12 hours.

My opinion is that many people who self-identify as being middle-class probably are, in terms of classic Marxist analysis, really working-class, and that conclusion would be fine if the people who make those judgements were themselves Marxists, but overwhelmingly they're not. Insofar as it refers to the class issue, this post is (as you know) about PERCEPTION - therefore as much about culture as economics, and about how perceptions influence whether people who might join protests might be put-off by hard-left symbolism and class-struggle rhetoric etc.

I didn't use the terms "middle class" and "democracy" in order to seem non-threatening, I used these terms to promote inclusivity and because I believe in democracy. To conclude your analysis of the (fairly obvious) short-comings of what the system tells us is "democracy" by saying that "the mainstream media is all too often in the pockets of corporate interests" etc says not much more than Charles Moore effectively admitted in The Daily Telegraph. I agree that characterising the Arab Spring as "broadly middle class" is an over-simplification, which is why I qualified that statement with the words "no means exclusively". I also agree that "the most dangerous likelihood of any middle-class revolution is that things will just carry on as they are" - you could equally say the same about working-class revolutions, and many Anarchists and liberals did say that before and after the alleged "dictatorship of the proletariat" in revolutionary Russia. For a revolution to even have a chance of long-term failure however, you have to have some form of revolution in the first place, which is why I'm suggesting that radicals should think strategically about not pissing too many people off.

Thanks for the tip about the 57% figure, the source for the 71% can be found here...
 http://britainthinks.com/sites/default/files/reports/WorkingClassReport.pdf

Please read the other article in the links above

AoW


True demagogy is a contradiction in itself

02.10.2011 07:33

Dishonest media routinely claim that any political decency was the result of their scaremongering rather than the success of cold-blooded uprising against hot-tempered regimes, and once you buy it they are able to sell it. But the distinctive mark of the Arab Spring is that the most intelligent and the most angry people in these societies joined forces and inspired everyone else - not the most wealthy, the most scared, or the most organised. Where they were unsuccessful it is because they were incapable to emancipate themselves from entrapment (Libya), where they were successful it is because they were capable to become entirely unpredictable for the the spies of the regime (Tahrir Square). Instead of a plagiarism of the narrative of the police state, the movement needs an understanding of itself which cannot be penetrated by the police state.

"It will then become plain that the world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality."

extreme climate
- Homepage: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm


ping extreme climate

02.10.2011 08:50

extreme climate is alive

rational existence


Extreme...

02.10.2011 09:43

This post never said that the Arab Spring was created by "the most wealthy, the most scared, or the most organised", so it's hard to work out what it is your comment means. And who do you think, exactly, is involved in a "plagiarism of the narrative of the police state"? Just one example of a group of people who plagiarised the narrative of the police state are European ultra-Communists who bought-in to the Gaddafi's regime's attempts to present their brutality, their oppression, their dictatorship and their incredible wealth as an ongoing expression of a justified struggle against foreign imperialism, as opposed to acknowledging that the regime's dictatorship was itself a form of domestic imperialism. To be honest your posts are so garbled I think you're deliberately trying to confuse people. The point to focus on is that we need to stay out on the streets and engage people with strategically intelligent populist campaigning.

Branches


35,000 in Manchester

02.10.2011 17:42

35,000 in Manchester, ZERO arrests, well reported all over the TV news. Fucking brilliant!! It's going to be a very long and bitter fight but what today's demo proves is the protest movement definitely hasn't run out of steam (as the govt would have hoped by now). They're in for the long haul, we have to be too. Keep up the good work

BBC News 1st reported 15,000 protestors, then 20,000, finally 35,000. They interviewed TU activists who made great, clear, simple points about the cuts, how a Robin Hood tax (as low as 0.05% on all transactions) would wipe out the deficit, and then interviewed Sure Start users who made their case about the cuts extremely well. Weird thing was one interviewer introduced TU activists, then switched to (quote) "ordinary" people, as if TU members aren't ordinary people too (so, while the coverage was positive and broadly sympathetic, it still illustrates a very serious underlying cultural problem as regards the public image of activists).

No surprise to see the Tories respond with the tried-and-tested right-wing formulae - huge Union Jack back-drop to make cuts look "patriotic" and hey presto a sudden promise to selling workers more cut-price Council Housing, as referred to in this post and a sure sign that the Tories feel threatened -

 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/485338.html

Brilliant TV coverage of the Wall St protests too, even admitting the movement's spreading to other American cities

Fuck the Coalition


Radical own-goal?

02.10.2011 18:03


Great protest, but I wonder why The Daily Mail chose to use this picture?

QED


Unity!!!!

02.10.2011 18:25









Photos from New York and Manchester

Road Runner


Re: QED

03.10.2011 01:39

I fail to see how an anarchist banner being pictured amongst other less radical symbology including Trade Union posters and a LGBT banner at an entirely peaceful protest is an own goal. Isn't the Daily Mail using an image like this more damaging to their "all anarchos are Molotov throwing psychos" line than anything?

You will not hide us away troll.

Anon


Re - QED

03.10.2011 04:38

Yeah you might actually be right there Anon, depends how you look at things, but the important issue here is what image is portrayed of anti-cuts protests, not what image is portrayed of anarchists. For saying that I'm a troll..... obviously

Either way I checked the BBC text news on the way into work, and the Manchester protest dropped off the list of national news stories, while items about some bloke driving a 4x4 up Snowdon and a Banksy getting painted over are still there

QED


think it through

04.10.2011 09:08

i fear that if we were to have a revolution -a lot of radicals would actually hinder it -or even oppose it -due to entrenched ideological postions.

Imagine that we have a revolution in this country. Now think -what will we need to do to sustain, nourish and DEFEND this revolution from the most powerful forces in the world (including powers of global finance,media coporations and the military).

What kind of power base does a revolution need? How can it continue to appeal to the majority of people -who no doubt will be bombarded by negative counter revolutionary propaghanda every day of their lives.

A revolution will move through different stages -what is needed at the begining will be different from what is needed after 50 years. A REVOLUTION IS NOT A STATIC PROCESS -it changes and develops -and yes IT WILL MAKE MISTAKES. Just be sure that you are on the right side when it comes.

onwards