Can somone tell us how you responded to the call to adopt the PGA hallmarks?

In brief the PGA hallmarks are a clear rejection of capitalism and it's associated forms of domination and discrimination and have accompanied most if not all of the major mobilisations for global justice. The PGA hallmarks also reject lobbying and ebraces direct confrontation with capitalism. You can read more about it here:  http://nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/pga/hallm.htm

From a daily reading of the newswire and all the climate camp associated features, I heard only from a brief segment on a radio show, that concerned anarchists and socialists were asking climate camp neighbourhoods to discuss adopting some principles unifying the camp (PGA hallmarks) and taking issue with some of the top-down statist solutions proposed by the likes of Moonbat (George Monbiot).

Did you discuss adopting the People's Global Action hallmarks, did you accept then, amend them or reject them?

From reading what was on offer, I'm glad I stayed away!

Within the West-Midlands neighbourhood and across the camp more generally the question of the PGA hallmarks stimulated a much needed debate about the climate action movement's relationship to the state and capitalism.

For many - myself included - the five hallmarks appeared as a given. That is to say, of course the camp was based upon a clear rejection of capitalism, statism and market-based solutions. We were organising using consensus and spokescouncils, taking direct action that at points would break the law, promoting self-reliance and a DIY ethos that sought to establish local networks of grassroots resistance that could work outside the hierarchies of party, lobby group or NGO. So I was quite surprised and somewhat frustrated when the hallmarks were read out to the neighbourhood, presented as an open-letter to the camp, that a number of people in the neighbourhood (about 50 at the time) took immediate issue with it.

I shouldn't downplay the large number who supported and recognised that the hallmarks (or some close variant of them) should form the basis of the camp's approach to tackling climate change. However, from the number of raised hands, requests for clarification and general confusion that followed the letter it became clear that we were not all on the page when it came to the question of capital, the state and climate change.

The open letter pointed out the incongruence of a direct action camp that gave a prominent platform to someone whose basic argument concluded that we need a strong state to tackle climate change (and who then went on to publicly endorse nuclear energy in a subsequent TV interview!).

However, perhaps of greater concern than Monbiot's 'stronger state' proclamation was the absence from the workshop programme of sessions that tackled from first principles questions such as 'what is capitalism?' or 'anarchism for beginners'. If we consider climate camp as a potential gateway to the autonomous left then it is imperative that we start debating from the outset what the 'autonomous left' means anyway. And this doesn't simply apply to newcomers and the anarchically curious; this is a debate that needs to be ongoing within the (loosely defined) autonomous left itself. Any effective social movement should always be, well, moving. Limits of the possible stretch and contract, definitions and determinations become obsolete and are surpassed, organizational parameters must be re-invented to counter new challenges, and of course the people themselves change - in number, vitality and personality. What does it mean to be anti-capitalist? The question must repeatedly be asked.

No one individual or group are to blame for this. Rather, such an oversight might be seen as the result of too much collective assumption. That is, assumption that we are all clear on the links between capitalist economics and climate change, that the state is an inherently violent and co-ercive force that supports exploitation and protects the wealth of the few, that only through fundamental social change can the climate crisis be averted and a more equitable and just society emerge...

Some people pointed out that in order to be inclusive as possible the camp ought not be too strident in declaring itself anti-capitalist/anarchist/anti-authoritarian/whatever. For many it will be their first experience of anarchist ways of organising or indeed of any sort of political action at all. It therefore remains important not to alienate people at the point of entry. To build a mass movement you need the masses, so the argument went. However, such a position is based on the misunderstanding that 'the masses' (or general public, the mainstream, or whatever you want to call the supposed 'recruitment base') will automatically be put-off when you mention the A-word. But from my experience quite the opposite is the case. People are curious about these ideas; people want to know more about capitalism, anarchism and anti-statism. The climate camp ought to be a space in which these ideas are put centre-stage and discussed openly, without having to feel awkward. To be sure, the camp may prove a uniquely radicalising experience for many, opening up new pathways for radical political and social engagement. This might be through attending workshops, participating in consensus decision making, informal chats over the washing-up or witnessing police violence. Creating a welcoming, engaging and open forum for discussion is not commensurate with disavowing a strong political position or trying to smuggle it in when no one is looking.

At the same time we ought to be careful that such a politics not be presented in a dogmatic or overly didactic fashion (which anyway would be a betrayal of the lessons of popular anarchist education). This appeared one of the major misunderstandings within the West-Mids when the pga hallmarks were read out: that some anonymous cabal was trying to impose their views on other campers (this was not the case, though it did highlight a healthy streak of anti-authoritarianism within the barrio!).

The difference is perhaps between showing someone something and telling them. Ten or so days in an autonomous, self-organising space with lovely vegan food is about the best place I can think of to show all these important things, unpack them and put them to debate. The problem lay in the fact that there was simply not enough time or space opened up fto allow breathing space for such discussion (due in no small part to the 'state of seige' the police put the camp under).

The open letter - so far as I could tell - was not intended to create barriers, to seperate the 'true' green-anarchists from everybody else. It was not some kind of policy document, thus no consensus was sought on it. It was a call to reinvigorate the debate around these issues and shift the discourse of the camp away from a narrowing focus on CO2 reductions as the primary challenge for climate change activists toward one that recognises economic growth, private acummulation and competitive finance - i.e. capital - as the driving force of climate chaos. This is a debate which needs to permeate the wider climate action movement, of which the climate camp should feel a part.