|
|
Back to Table of Contents
There seems to be a lot of informal debate going on about June 18th tactics.
I've written this in the hope of encouraging people to respect each other's
angles on the day, and keep the debate positive rather than damaging.
What was it all about?
Last year, I went to one of the very early J18 meetings. Something that came
out very clearly then was the following idea:”This is not another street
party. We will even try and avoid using the words ‘street party'. Rather,
we will be taking the fight against destruction and exploitation directly
to the place where much of it is controlled. We will be targeting the
Square Mile.” Though a Carnival did end up being part of the day, I feel
the “targeting the Mile” line was carried right through in all the J18
publicity and planning. I personally was well aware of the kind of things
that might - and did - happen, in the way of such buildings as the Futures
Exchange & banks being damaged and occupied, and accepted - okay, hoped!
- that this would just as much part of the day as dancing, boys in sexy
frocks, sound systems, and running into old friends. I knew that I would
be at risk perhaps of being arrested, or hurt (anywhere there are police
that is a possibility), or - yes, of course - caught up in things that
I personally would not wish to support. But I knew that the overall message
of the day, resisting global capitalism globally, as a hugely diverse
group of people, was absolutely, totally, worth these risks, no matter
what happened, and that it was vitally important for me to go and take
the action that I personally felt was right.
Media
After many years of campaigning, I have learnt that the mainstream media have,
and work to, their own agenda. I do not any longer believe that our agenda
influences theirs. Sometimes, if we're lucky, our agendas coincide a little
- an example of this being the anti-capitalist message getting through
somewhat - it was clearly a weird enough concept for the papers to include
it!
I am not unduly affected by the way the mainstream media presented the
events of June 18th because I believe we had no control over this. I think
we knew beforehand that the sections of the media that wished to, would
present it as a violent event; that those who wished to take the oh-so-worn-out
“peaceful rally hijacked by drunken anarchists” line would, and that the
liberal papers would include some political comment and maybe some half-decent
comparisons to the Rebecca riots & other examples of the “tradition of
British resistance” - as indeed they did.
We should know very well by now the role we are placed in by the media
- regardless of what we actually do. If everybody at J18 had done nothing
but dance, we still would have been “eco-terrorists obstructing mums &
kids needing to get to schools & hospitals” - and hell, I reckon the tabloids
would have gone out and staged their own bottle-throwing photo-shoots.
(Did you notice how so many of those photos were the same few scenarios
just taken from different angles?) Remember the Reclaim The Future march?
When the police arranged for the headline on every single news report
to be “protester held for attempted murder in violent protest condemned
by Dockers” - a complete lie?
As well as putting effort into using our own alternative media, I am
still trying to learn what we can do with the mainstream lot. But I will
not credit them with telling the truth, and I will not let their predictable
lines affect what I do, and I will communicate to as many people as possible
the way they work - something a vast number of ordinary people know anyway.
And I will certainly not let the media affect my memory of my real experience
of the day, or our own legitimate debate, as if they are something we
are, or can be, responsible for.
What really happened?
Let's not lose track of what in fact did occur. Thousands of people had a party.
Hundreds of people occupied, prevented work in, or damaged buildings where
a lot of outrageous stuff goes on. Hundreds of people resisted/fought
tooled-up riot police who wanted us out of the space we chose to occupy.
And, as at any crowd event, a small number of people got drunk or tanked
up on excitement, and went for seemingly random, meaningless acts of destruction
& intimidation.
AND NO-ONE HAD ANY CONTROL OVER ANYBODY ELSE'S CHOICES FOR THE DAY.
Now, frankly, from a personal point of view, I was kind of frustrated
at the number of people who moved off with the sound system out of the
square mile quite early in the evening due to police presence - although
for some it was an attempt to move to a different part of the mile, apparently,
this didn't work and the majority of people shifted to Trafalgar Square.
From a personal point of view, I wasn't into fighting with the police
(you don't always have a choice, but where I was, for a long time there
were enough of us to hold the space simply by holding our ground physically)
but I do recognise that those who were doing so were making it a lot easier
for the rest of us to stay where we were.
From a personal point of view, I was pissed off with the nutters who
were off their faces and intimidating random members of the public, and
I felt strongly enough about this to try a) reasoning with a few (which
didn't work!) and b) physically getting in the way/away. Of course it's
easy to say “that had nothing to do with politics anyway”, but the point
has been made to me that it does - the politics of alienation, poverty,
discrimination, frustration.
From a personal point of view I am totally chuffed by what happened to
the Futures Building & other such places - it will be a cheerful memory
for a long time.
From a personal point of view, I thought the sight of a carnival in the
centre of London, with little kids and everything, was very cool. But
that's just me. And not everyone felt the same as me about tactics and
what they wanted to do. And I think that's absolutely fine, because the
people resisting the domination of global capital are hugely diverse,
rightly so, and will only become more so as more people wake up to what's
going on.
But what will people think?
That depends on a lot of different things. For a start, how much information
they have. If they believe the media tell the truth, they'll have a ridiculously
inaccurate angle on the day - but as I've said, I feel we have little
or no control over that. I would imagine a large proportion of the population
take what they read in the papers with a lot of pinches of salt, and they'll
get some of the message, possibly, and perhaps think a bit themselves
about the day and what it was about. Maybe. Maybe some will try to find
out more. And those who get alternative media will have more of the truth
& issues, and those who can be independent thinkers or have access to
information or who already find out about issues for themselves will know
more, etc etc etc. That's the way everything works. Would the world be
in the state it's in if people normally had access to the truth?
But my feeling all the way along was that the main point of June 18 wasn't
about “changing people's minds”. It was simply about - in solidarity with
folks all round the world, some of whom get shot when they try to resist
the way we do - targeting the places that are fucking us all over. And
shutting them down, just for a day. And we did.
Changing hearts and minds? Communicating with as many people as possible?
Building creative alternatives? OF COURSE. That is what we do the other
364 days of the year! All in our own ways, once again.
And, having gone right back to doing that myself, I've been mentioning
June 18 a lot, to a quite large variety of people. These are questions
about tactics, but I answer these by going straight to the main issues.
As in “do you know why people felt strongly enough to take such actions?
Because in those buildings, they take decisions, and do deals, that are
about destroying the very earth we live on, and murdering those who resist.”
And I'm personally finding that people see the point. Some of them even
say “I wish I could have gone.” Many say “don't underestimate how much
people are aware of what goes on.” And despite varying views on what they
think is appropriate or effective, none of the “ordinary” people I've
talked to have said much about personally feeling one kind of resistance
invalidates another - they have been more into talking about the idea
of resisting capitalism, and what it means.
If “what will people think” is what you base your actions on, how far
back do you go? Do you refuse to break the laws that make peaceful protest
illegal, because people won't take your message seriously if you're a
“criminal”? Do you move away when someone is being beaten up, because
the police tell you to, and respectable people obey them? Do you pay taxes,
despite knowing they go on bombing whoever Britain's bombing currently,
because “what will people think?” There are too many people out there,
with too many different views, based often on too much erroneous information,
to measure our actions this way. Our first duty is to ourselves, to do
what we feel is right.
And when I remember the views I held a few years back, and wonder what
I'll be thinking in a few years time, I think “thank god no-one tried
to cater to what they thought I could handle, what they thought wouldn't
turn me off. That's not having respect for me, and I would have no respect
for them. How would I learn anything without challenges?”
Respect
I guess that's what I'm asking for us to hang on to. I am concerned that there
has already been some “attacking” each other about what happened, from
various different angles. How dare we intimidate eachother for being where
we're at? I have my own feelings about the tactics of the day, and I realise
many people may disagree with me. That's okay; a few years ago, I would
have disagreed with me. And I think the debate that goes on about tactics,
means & ends, etc, is healthy. But at the same time., let's accept our
diversity. Assume that people have carefully considered what they do and
how they do it, and are making what they feel are the right choices for
themselves at that time. I refuse to narrow my vision of where we are
going collectively to exclude anyone who works differently from me. Yes,
it would be easier to do that, and I‘ve had to work hard not to make that
mistake myself with different methods of campaigning. But frankly, if
all of you I have tactics arguments with, aren't there with me, it's not
my revolution. I'm not going to sign this, for the simple reason that
there will be some state follow-up to J18, and a signed paper feels a
bit too much like evidence. I'll be having discussions with lots of people
hopefully anyway.
(or “okay, so we're against capitalism.... but what does that mean?)
J18, according to the propaganda, was coordinated by a wide range of
groups. It is probably fair comment to say that in fact most of the groups
involved are part of what is sometimes called the “direct action movement”
or the “activist movement” (ie Earth First!, Reclaim The Streets!, genetics
groups, animal liberation groups etc).
The J18 proposal identified global capitalism, based on the exploitation
of people and planet for the profit of a few, as the root of our common
social and ecological problems...this could be seen as a consequence of
the growing politicisation of the direct action movement over the years.
This trend could be noticed in the movement away from single-issue politics
(hence the commonly heard slogan “no issue is single”), the much vaunted
link-up between “direct action activists” and striking workers (eg Reclaim
The Streets! and the Liverpool dockers, and Critical Mass/RTS and the
Tubeworkers..)…
On one level this apparent trend of increasing anti-capitalism within
the direct action movement is very encouraging. However it often seems
that many people within the movement are not too clear about what capitalism
is (is it money? Banks? Transnational Corporations?), and so having put
a name to the problem, are still not too sure about what it is. And this
can lead to confusion when deciding what to do, how to take effective
action to move towards that (maybe not so) distant objective of dismantling
global capitalism. The purpose of this limited discussion paper is to
briefly attempt to clarify a few concepts relating to capitalism, whilst
recognising that no-one has all the answers..
Capitalism is often equated with money, so that you often hear people
talking about the need to abolish money to achieve a “fair society”. Sometimes
LETS schemes are proposed as an alternative. Similarly banks and other
financial institutions are often regarded as the essence of capitalism
(and this explains why the proponents of the June 18th international day
of action are targetting financial centres across the globe).
Alternatively the problem is seen as the expansion of the global market
and free trade, (with globalisation and neo-liberalism the buzz-words)
and accordingly the World Trade Organisation (WTO) (which polices free
trade agreements) is seen as enemy number one. This is particularly the
opinion of Peoples' Global Action (PGA), the international network founded
as a result of the Encuentros (the international gatherings catalysed
by the Zapatistas) – indeed the full name of PGA is People's Global Action
against free trade and the WTO.
A related view situates multi-national corporations (or, increasingly,
trans-national corporations, TNC's) at the root of the problem, with corporate
dominance blamed for “disempowering local communities” (the local is often
emphasised as an alternative to big, centralised, “undemocratic” corporations
and institutions).
What none of these views seem to bring out or emphasise is the essential
relation within capitalism, the relation without which capitalism couldn't
exist. (Instead they focus on physical manifestations). Money, banks,
financial institutions, markets, TNC's, the WTO are all features of the
capitalist system, but THE defining capitalist social relation is the
relation between capital and labour. For it is wage labour, alienated
labour (ie production not for the direct benefit of the producers, but
appropiated by capitalists) which is the life-blood of capitalism. Capitalism
depends on wage-labour for its existence; if the working population didn't
have to sell themselves for money each day (ie if we could produce for
our daily needs) who would want to work for a capitalist or for the state?
But we don't own the means of production, capitalists do... and this is
the way the capital-labour relation reproduces itself (by continually
forcing people to work for a wage). The capital-labour relation is the
relation between classes (this question of class is especially something
which tends to dismay many in the direct action movement, perhaps unnecessarily*),
and it is this relation which must be abolished if capitalism is to be
dismantled. So we see that by focusing on money, or on the financial institutions,
or corporations, or regulatory bodies such as the WTO, we are missing
the point if we do not attack the underlying social relation**.
This question is vitally important for anybody seriously considering
strategies for attacking capitalism. For if we recognise that it is capitalism,
which by appropriating the process of production and by extension taking
control of nearly all forms of human activity and subjugating them to
its own need for constant expansion and accumulation, which is responsible
for the exploitation of people AND the destruction of the environment,
then the target of our attack should be the capital-labour relation itself.
In this sense we can understand why ultimately the only way to “reverse
the forces of environmental destruction” (Earth First!'s avowed aim) is
to attack wage labour. Hence the importance of link-ups with groups of
workers in struggle, such as the Magnet strikers, the Hillingdon Hospital
workers, the Tubeworkers, the electrical engineers on the Jubilee line,
etc. Many in the direct action movement are reluctant to get involved
in these struggles, seeing a contradiction in being against work and yet
fighting to get workers their jobs back. And it is true that these struggles
are at present about the conditions of the exploitation of labour, rather
than putting in question the exploitation of labour itself.. the challenge
is to push beyond these boundaries through the intensification of struggle
to the point where wage-labour, hence capital is threatened. One of the
prerequisites for this intensification of struggle (and also a result
of it) is an increased level of consciousness.. the point was made in
the pamphlet on dole autonomy*** that many in the direct action movement
depend on dole cheques for their survival, but paradoxically are mostly
unwilling to get involved in anti-New Deal struggles, perhaps not seeing
it as a sexy enough issue. Yet this “issue” is part of the ongoing offensive
of capital against labour (yes, that's you and me when they hassle us
off the dole or onto the New Deal or into some crap job). The New Deal
is intended to create a more disciplined workforce and to force workers
to accept worse conditions and pay and more profits for capitalists. And
as we all know, more capital accumulation means more environmental destruction
(so anti-JSA actions are not just another “single issue”).
This is not to say that all we should be doing is opposing the JSA, or
supporting striking workers (or going on strike ourselves when we are
forced to work). It is true that work-place/dole struggles are not the
only way of attacking the capital-labour relation; another example is
housing struggles. It is interesting that whereas the 80's class struggle
anarcho movement was sometimes criticised for focusing too much on the
point of production (“workerism”) to the exclusion of eg gender issues,
reproduction, the environment etc, the 90's activist scene can be criticised
for failing to recognise the importance of class. We can only realise
our revolutionary potential when we break out of our isolation, and uniting
with other workers/shirkers in struggle, overturn both wage slavery and
dole slavery. Only by taking control of our human creativity and activity
ourselves can we decide what kind of life we want to lead, what conditions
do we want to live in, and what relationship with / impact on the environment
we will have.
Notes
*many people in the direct action movement are sociologically from a middle-class
background (ie their family, their education etc), but exist on low income
from dole cheques or occasional casual work, in which case it could be
argued that in terms of their economic position they are no longer middle-class
** the tendency to understand capitalism not as a social relation but
as a thing (eg money, banks etc) can be called reification (literally,
turning a phenomenon into a thing), and to become obsessed with the thing
rather than the relation can be called fetishisation (as in the fetishes
or idols worshipped in religions, whereby an object is seen as possessing
supernatural powers, or the force of the universe etc)
*** Aufheben pamphlet “Dole autonomy versus the re-imposition of work”
Nick X
The following three articles are reprinted from the magazine Uniundercurrent
(c/o sussex autonomous society, Falmer House, University of Sussex, Falmer,
Brighton BN1 8DN). They are in fact an exchange between contributors to
the magazine who put forward a critique of J18 and someone who felt moved
to respond..
On June 18th, leading politicians of the eight biggest economies will gather
in Cologne (Germany) to talk about the future of the world economy and
as almost always, this will be the target of protests. A world-wide alliance
is forming which is according to the bulletin of the British activists'
driven by the "recognition that the global capitalist system is at the
root of our social and ecological troubles." But what sounds like a point
of departure for a critical analysis is unfortunately all the campaign
has to say about its position. Instead of going beyond this kind of commonplace,
it simply states that "a global movement of resistance is rising", and
reading the few propaganda leaflets produced so far one soon realizes
that it is all about quantities. We are thus told that there were lots
of people on the streets at last year's economic summit ("...2oo,ooo people
in India..."), lots of agit-prop material has been produced ("20,000 lovely
little folding leaflets..."), lots of different groups are involved (incl.
trade unions, peace groups, church against poverty, national union of
students - to name but a few) and, last but not least, the campaign bursts
of fantastic ideas for action: "giving out free food...lots more custard
pies...laughing all the way to the bank...sound system in balloon floating
above the City!".
Them and us
"We are more possible than they can powerfully imagine" the campaign trumpets
- but this them-versus-us-logic is odd on several counts. Not only has
global capitalism - the alleged target - nothing to do with a simple "them".
What is more, the collective "us" that is being invoked is utterly vague
- "a growing alliance of social and environmental movements". The only
thing all the different groups have in common is that in one way or the
other they are affected by global capitalism - but that, again, is merely
a commonplace, insufficient as a basis for collective resistance beyond
the symbolism of raving a couple of hours against the gathering of some
character masks in Cologne. But far from being a minor mistake of the
June 18th campaign, this indifference towards the social content of movements
is its very essence. In their own words: "The longer the list, the more
effective the action." Following the requirements of media representation,
it seeks to bring together masses. The result is pure mystification. On
the one side, we have the apocalyptic scenario - "economic crisis, the
millennium bug, environmental crisis, war famine, poverty" - which then
is countered by the celebrated diversity of countless movements all around
the world. The assumption is that anyone suffering from the present social
order is by his very nature for its overthrow. Yet the vast majority of
the groups and movements listed is directed against specific consequences
and aspects of capitalism. The secondary weaving together of all the single-issue-movements
leads not to a rejection of the totality of society - quite the reverse,
it is simply an incoherent patch-work of people who, at least for a day,
come together and party - or throw some custard pies in somebody's face.
"Global Capitalism"...
Preoccupied with listing groups and original ideas for actions, the campaign
has dispensed with critical analysis. This is an immediate consequence
of the aim to be as broad as possible: Any clarification of the political
objectives of the June 18th campaign would reveal the lack of a political
consent between e.g. the Zapatistas and the NUS, the trade unions and
autonomist groups. This kind of short-sighted campaigning is based on
the very absence of a clear critique of "global capitalism" in order to
suit virtually everybody. What remains of the proclaimed anti-capitalism
is but a bunch of slogans.
However, while radical critique of capital is obviously out even amongst
those who pretend to practically oppose it, various resentments against
certain aspects of the present-day situation are rather growing, with
"globalization" being buzz-word number one. The talk of "global capitalism"
the campaign displays without any clarification is perfectly well in harmony
with the present media hype about globalization. This consists mainly
of bemoaning the fact that, confronted with an apparently unlimited fluidity
of global capital, the power of the nation state is vanishing . Virtually
everyone has a dislike for "globalization": Left-wingers are concerned
about the future of democracy - since the politicians who are now allegedly
rendered powerless were at least democratically elected whereas citizens
have no say in the decisions that the vicious executives of multinational
corporations take. Subcommandante Marcos, spokesman of everybody's darling,
the Zapatistas in Mexico, sees the organic cultures of peoples being threatened
by the evil forces of globalized finance capital. The French fascists
of the Front National reject it as an attack on the sovereignty of the
nation state and a threat to national culture. The recent campaign against
the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments), in many regards similar
to the present June 18th campaign, drew exactly upon this ideology: As
the MAI sought to give foreign capital a better position against national
legislation, the opposition against it displayed a sometimes extreme nationalism
and was practically propaganda for the state. A common response to globalization
is thus the call for a re-regulation of the economy by the state. Neo-liberalism,
another buzz-word used basically synonymously, is often countered with
the demand for a Keynesian policy, popular especially among traditional
lefty social democrats and trade-unionists. Keynes acknowledged that in
order to prevent crises, the state has to intervene actively into the
market by directly creating jobs (which, according to Keynes, could practically
mean to make people dig holes and fill them afterwards) and generally
raising demand (to compensate capital's tendency to over-production).
It is not at all surprising that in the present situation lefty intellectuals
like Eric Hobsbawm proclaim "the end of neo-liberalism" and beg New Labour
to adopt a more Keynesian strategy of taxation and redistribution. In
general, there are hopes that the current hegemony of social democratic
governments in Europe could clear the way for an alternative to "neo-liberalism".
While the June 18th campaign does not rally for social democracy, the
vague opposition to "global capitalism" it spreads is totally compatible
with addressing the state as a supposed counter-pole to the market. And
in fact, many of the movements the campaign is glad to have on board work
along these lines.
"The heart of the economy"
The uncritical concept of capitalism the campaign seems to subscribe to is
illustrated by the concentration on the financial sector of capital: the
global actions will take place in the financial districts, understood
as the "heart of the global economy". While production appears to be merely
a technical process in which useful things are made, money and financial
institutions are regarded as the essence of capitalism. Yet although capitalism
cannot dispense with a developed banking system, it essentially depends
on the production of surplus-value through the exploitation of wage-labour.
The vast sums of value circulating in the banking districts represent
the successful result of this process - and if they don't, the next crash
is imminent. Therefore it would rather make sense to occupy some factories
- if there is such a thing as "the heart of the economy" it lies there
and not at Barclay's Bank. This may sound like an irrelevant footnote.
But one has to keep in mind that especially the recent crises in the financial
sector many have nurtured resentment against finance capital and prompted
calls for a re-regulation of the world economy. The Times stated last
summer that "the IMF's reputation has sunk to its lowest since the body
was set up in 1944", and social reformists come up with proposals about
taxation on "unproductive" speculative capital (so the state can redistribute
money for the benefit of all and create jobs...). The campaign's concentration
on the financial institutions fails to distinguish itself from these productivist
and populist tendencies.
This misleading fixation on finance capital seems to be corrected by
the second target of the campaign, the multinational corporations. But
why privilege multinationals? Are national corporations less capitalist?
Are small enterprises any better than "big business"? Significant parts
of the campaign seem to stick to these notions: community-based cornershop
versus Somerfield's, small peasants versus agro-capital and so on. "Small
is beautiful" was after all a fairly popular slogan among eco-activists.
This perspective on capital gets professionalised by groups like Corporate
Watch and the many initiatives busily cataloguing the many sins and crimes
of individual corporations, which practically means most of the time to
launch boycotts and thus spread the idea of "consumer's power". Thus,
the opposition to Shell is based on their involvement in Nigeria, we are
supposed not to eat certain chocolate bars because Nestle does this and
that and so on. The critique of the fundamental logic of capital is replaced
with a positivistic and moralistic approach. All this neglects the insight
that capital in all its forms deserves abolition - and the family owned
sweat-shop is by no means any less annoying as a workplace than AT&T.
Confusion and pseudo-practice
All this is not to say that the June 18th campaign would be in favour of sweat
shops and state regulation, nationalism or social democracy. It is none
of this, but at the same time shows no interest in analysing the dead-ends
in which the articulation of social discontent runs today. Instead it
employs a naive strategy of immediacy: the imaginative hippy-individual
that "takes his desire for reality" is depicted as the ultimate response
to global capitalism which essentially is comprised of banks and corporations,
run by "them", the evil inhuman managers and yuppies. Everything is supposed
to be so clear-cut and self-evident that any further reflection can be
dispensed with - hence the ignorance of the many ideological and practical
ways in which opposition gets neutralized (if it is not complicit with
capital right from the beginning, as probably most of the groups on the
campaign's list are anyways). The call for mass action amounts to confusion
about the social objectives of the alleged "global resistance" and ultimately
leads to mere pseudo-practice, i.e. much ado about nothing that gives
those involved the illusion to lay the ground "for huge social and political
changes".
Critiques of the June 18th action, it's aims, organisation and general relevance,
are important and to be welcomed. Theory, critical or otherwise, is too
often rejected in favour of action when we need to combine theory and
action, fostering, articulating and inhabiting the tension between them.
Lest this response be taken as saying all is fine with the aims and focus
of the action let me emphasise it isn't. There are fault line running
through it - many of which the critique from Uniundercurrent identifies.
If the critique helps to bring out and transcend the problems and contradictions
of the June 18th action then it will have been worthwhile but if it elevates
one position while parodying all others then it amounts to little more
then theoretical point scoring
The long list campaign against the economic summit
The lack of theoretical flesh on the bones of the June 18th action has been
pointed out by the Sussex University zine 'Uniundercurrent'. In an article
entitled "The longer the list, the better the action" they argue that,
on the strength of the first few propaganda leaflets, the organisers of
June 18th are more interested in numbers then analysis; in how many groups
they can get involved then in the commonality between them; and that this
in turn leads to lowest common denominator theory and a spectacular practice.
Such criticisms are well-placed and ultimately helpful, food for thought
for those involved, but the article repeatedly falls more into caricature
then critique - tending, in turn, to critique it's own caricature rather
then what the leaflets said or what might actually be happening.
The quote the article takes for it's title - "the longer the list, the
better the action,” is part of a sentence from a leaflet encouraging involvement
in the June 18th action. True enough, it' s not true - a list that included
the likes of, to use their example, the French Front National, would make
for a longer list but a scarily incoherent action. To use this snippet
though, as the writer does, to confirm the "campaigns" "essence" as "indifference
towards the social content of movements" and to suggest that June 18th
is all about masses and quantities is indicative of the writers disingenuous
selective reading. The first part of the sentence reads: "We will only
realise our collective visions by taking action together" then lists some
likely suspect sectors - unwaged, students, workers, etc, before finishing
"the longer...”. You could be forgiven for assuming this meant that the
listees should share some collective content but, fair enough, the ‘visions'
referred to could do with some focus.
With the articles subheading though, "the campaign against the economic
summit" we are immediately in the realms of caricature. Nowhere in the
leaflets produced or organising meetings held has it been suggested that
June 18th is a campaign against the economic summit. The June 18th action
can at most be called a co-ordination, not a campaign, and is, at best,
precisely the rejection of the totality of the present social order that
the article calls for, not an event opposing economic summits.
From this unpromising start the article goes on to contend that "the
campaign" posits a incoherent, vague, them and us logic; has dispensed
with any critique of capital and critical analysis generally; is fixated
on financial institutions and multinationals; has a positivistic and moralistic
approach; all amounting to confusion and mere pseudo-practise. Such insight
after reading a "few propaganda leaflets" is surely commendable but leaves
little room to practise what you preach and do more than scratch the surface
of a subject.
To expect critical analysis from an A5 leaflet is possibly asking too
much. While to conclude the rejection of radical critique (read as our
radical critique) from such a leaflet is going too far. Tell the many
people on the J18 email discussion list an international forum for interested
groups and individuals set up at the start - that, “further reflection
has been dispensed with.” They have been analysing and reflecting on capital,
state, resistance and the like, for some time now. There are also groups
around the UK organising meetings to discuss the plan where no doubt,
some reflection may slip in occasionally. Then there is the London networks
‘What is Capitalism?' conference - organised precisely for “further reflection.”
The writer of the article may not have known all this but then if “the
essence” of “the campaign” has already been revealed there is no need
to find out.
In fact the lack of a critical analysis of capitalism in the direct action
movement and its almost complete mystification in social life generally,
is part of the point of organising the action. If a “recognition that
the global capitalist system is at the root of our social and ecological
troubles” was “commonplace” we might be in more encouraging times. The
commonplace, in this instance, is for most people an obscurity.
Us and them
Juxtapositions for the sake of a propaganda leaflet such as, “We are more possible
then they can powerfully imagine” are hardly to be taken as conclusive
evidence of something's “logic” or “essence”. Propaganda at least that
which aims to get people active - often involves simplifications of a
subject. By definition it aims to persuade or convince people and, yes,
those working on J18 would like people to get involved and may initially
be less concerned to ask to see the groups theoretical credentials; or
to check whether or not they are “complicit with capital.” Furthermore
the assumptions made in the text that our/their collective resistance
is basically “raving for a few hours” or “throw(ing) some custard pies”
might ring hollow for participants in ‘the south' where doing either is
not exactly top of the agenda.
Far from positing a crude them and us the claim is that our problems
are systemic, inherent within the socio-economic order. Interpretations
as to the fundamentals of this order may differ, as may the methods for
its disposal, but the need to act collectively is clear. Who knows, action
may even affect their/our interpretations. Maybe even, a way into an understanding
of capitalism is through the ‘globalisation' debate that the article sneers
at.. To denounce those who haven't reached your understanding yet is akin
to the vegans who attack potential vegetarians for not going far enough
thus sending them straight back to the meat counter. That there are, within
the June 18th network, conflicting views, simplifications, confusions
and hopes of getting a diversity of groups involved, is undeniable. Such
are the concerns of practise. The luxury of everyone acceding to your
understanding or agreeing with your ideas and practises is often unavailable
in small unified groups let alone large diverse movements. This is, of
course, where analysis, argument, dialogue and discussion comes in.
The heart of the global capitalist economy
If June 18th is just a few leaflets then a few thousand people occupying the
City for a day then it might well be exhilarating reason enough maybe
- but it wont add up to abolishing capitalism. That will require a more
consistent praxis. Then again, to be so sure of where a “weaving together
of all the single issue movements” leads, that it is “simply an incoherent
patchwork ”, is to forget that the outcomes that result from a practise
are not always the ones intended. That the secondary effects may be wholly
unexpected. This of course cuts both ways and is no reason to dispense
with analysis or intention but just maybe, looking for the potential and
possibilities of a situation is as useful as dismissing it in advance
The coinciding of J18 with the G8 summit is not to put pressure on bad
corporations via nation-states but to show the collusion between state
and capital and the necessity to overthrow both; to contend that exploitation
is also a political matter not just an economic one. That this is not
bluntly said and arguably it should be - owes more to a desire to open
a debate before concluding it, and to the perceived role of a propaganda
leaflet, then any rejection of critical analysis. Starting from a recognition
of the multiplicity of positions and interests irreducible to a single
analysis and tentatively endorsing this divergence, the unity is then
aimed at precisely the recognition of exploitation by capital from different
but complementary experiences. It doesn't presuppose that unity but attempts
to open a space for critique that is available to all.
To claim, as the writer does, that “if there is such a thing as “the
heart of the global economy”” it “would rather make sense to occupy some
factories” - makes no sense at all. Besides the literalism of its interpretation
of a slogan, the autonomist insight that all of social life under capitalism
tends to become a factory for the exploitation of surplus value not only
wage-labour but the free work of students and housewives etc means that
June 18th is an occupation of “some factories”: the social factories of
the city streets and squares.
And while June 18th may well be “in many regards similar” to the campaign
against the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments) - although the
similarities are unspecified - there is at least one huge difference.
The campaign against the MAI was mainly a lobbyist, letter writing opposition
to one re-regulatory element of capital, the June 18th co-ordination is
rooted in a direct actionist opposition to capitalism, full stop.
Practising pseudo-confusion
A call for mass action might indeed “amount to confusion”, if that was what
was being called for. It isn't. On the contrary, autonomous actions co-ordinated
and focused - are being called for. Hopefully by those who have thought
about what they are doing and why. One of the main organising principles
of J18 is autonomy for the groups and movements involved. Meaning in practise
encouraging self-activity and being less quick to dismiss other approaches.
Not to build "a mass" but to make connections, encourage debate, open
dialogues. Whether such confusing activity is leading “ultimately (to)
mere pseudo-practise” is to be decided by those who know the true practise
presumably we await their instructions…
The article ends with a summation of “the campaigns” strategy as naïve,
using a slogan from the leaflet as illustration, but while “imagine taking
your desires for reality” is on the leaflet it is hardly "depicted as
the ultimate response to global capitalism” . The June 18th action may
well be naïve but it is not just a “strategy of immediacy” by “hippy-individuals”
against the evil “them”. That this is just clear-cut misrepresentation
is self-evident. There are other “slogans” on the leaflet, which the writer
does not mention, such as “imagine a society based on mutual aid, sharing
and respect for nature” and “imagine a world where people have control
of their lives and communities”. A less condemnatory reading may have
suggested that those involved do feel creating a different world will
require thought, collective action and an ongoing process and have presented
some constructive ideas to pepper the criticisms.
If the June 18th action is not the activity of a "significant movement
that at least claims to be revolutionary" it is at least significant for
revolutionaries; and if its participants, like the theorists at 'Uniundercurrent',
are "remote from advancing a coherent line of argumentation" they are,
at least, advancing arguments. As an attempt to put capitalism back on
the agenda of resistance at a time when its logic is further cloaked in
mystification; as a contribution to the rebuilding of international solidarity
at a time of rekindled nationalism and as a forwarding of informed imagination
at a time when radical visions are seen as withering away, the June 18th
action deserves, not caricatures, but the sharpest of critical engagements.
While claiming that critique of J18 is much needed, the author to the reply
dismissed ours as a caricature. We would be the last ones to deny that
there has been a lot of caricaturing going on. But the only reason why
our text might give that impression, is that its object - the information
we have about J18 - is itself caricaturing the world of capital.
Our critique of J18 consisted of a number of related points: the fixation
on finance capital and evil multinational corporations, the participation
in the hype about “globalisation”, accompanied by a problematic localism,
to name but the most important ones. The response evades these issues
and instead repeatedly claims that the meagre basis on which we wrote
our critique led us to distort the issue. However, we criticised precisely
that there is nothing further than this “meagre basis” - that is a few
leaflets - on which the J18 campaign/co-ordination (whatever difference
that makes) is based. It is not our fault that a few small leaflets are
so far all the co-ordination has published - it is the very problem. Fair
enough, there have been e-mail and other discussion groups, but they are
very private discussions. It is the publications made publicly available
that represent a certain underlying consensus, and as such are to be taken
as expressing the gist of a campaign. Otherwise, what would their purpose
be? That to the present day not a single pamphlet bringing together “the
multiplicity of positions and interests” has been put out underscores
our claim that crucial questions are being neglected in order to keep
up a superficial unity of action.
Instead of engaging with our critique, the writer explains to us the
thorny path of bringing together the various movements around the globe.
This obviously requires not asking for “groups' theoretical credentials”.
Yet while it is apparently too arrogant “to check whether or not groups
are complicit with capital”, this political indifference does not prevent
the writer from claiming that ”June 18th...is rooted in a direct actionist
opposition to capitalism.” This contradiction remains a mystery to us,
but our main point was something else: that a mobilisation of this type
avoids a critical theory of capital and consequently reproduces ideology.
Of course, we are not in any way questioning the necessity of practice
and we consider many of the actions planned for the day worthwhile. However,
the reply to our previous article, as well as J18 generally, considers
theory at most a secondary issue. The main focus is in the ‘action', and
any critical reflection is postponed indefinitely. Even more flagrantly,
the author bets on the idea that “the outcomes that result from a practice
are not always the ones intended” and that “the secondary effects may
be wholly unexpected”... In other words, never mind if we reproduce social-democratic
ideology, it might accidentally still end in a social revolution.
Not only do we find in the response to our article no refutation of the
points we make, but unfortunately they seem more relevant now than before:
the latest agit-leaflet is worth quoting at length to illustrate this.
It claims: “Our planet is actually run by the financial markets - a giant
video game in which people buy and sell blips on electronic screens, trading
life for money in their search for higher profits. Yet the consequences
of this frenzied game are very real: human lives, ecosystems, jobs and
even entire economies [!!sic!!] are at the mercy of this reckless global
system”. In reality the world is, of course, not run by the financial
markets. Capital is a system of relations of production of which the financial
markets are but a (necessary) offspring. To fixate the attack on them
is to turn the world upon its head, resulting in such absurdities as complaining
about the damages made to “jobs” and even “entire economies” which are
apparently just as innocent as “ecosystems and human lives”. Since of
course these “entire economies” are capitalist, this J18 statement affirms
what it pretends to attack1. This feels like stating the obvious.
Although no one can deny the importance of financial markets, this passage
simply reasserts a view of capitalism we tried to refute in the last article.
Is this the further reflection resulting from the “what is capitalism?”
conference?
This misconception of finance capital was one of the points we tried
to raise, and not, as the writer claims, that nothing matters except the
factories. We mentioned the factories in order to attack J18's fixation
on the financial centres; a fixation that is an obstacle for a critique
of production. Of course, capital forms all of social life and not just
production in the factories, and reclaiming the streets is one adequate
response to this.
The J18 co-ordination is undeniably one between many different groups
with radically opposing views. This on the one hand shows a serious lack
of consensus, and a blurry amalgam of groups that don't even necessarily
have the same basic aims. On the other hand, and paradoxically, it is
also the expression of a consensus: anything will do, as long as it fits
with the vague anti-globalisation attitude. That, as we noted, this resentment
can also be found on the political Right, e.g. the French Front National,
does not seem to bother the author - instead, he claims that we suggested
that J18 would like to include the Front National in its long list. Obviously,
we never did, but the co-ordination is already, even without any Fascists,
“scarily incoherent”.
Since the author dismissed our article as mere caricature and did not
engage with the points we raised, there is nothing new we can say. Except
maybe that “Economies versus Financial Markets” - this latest caricature
of anti-capitalism - is even worse than the stuff we had referred to in
the last undercurrent. It seems our critique was not a caricature, but
an understatement.
P.S. We refuse to be compared to vegans (see ‘Hitler was a Vegetarian',
uniundercurrent #6)
(1) For an analysis of how capital presents itself in such a way as to
facilitate the emergence of an “anti-capitalism” that is a one-sided attack
on the abstract side of capital (e.g. finance capital) while affirming
the “concreteness” of labour and production, and how furthermore this
“anti-capitalism” relates to anti-Semitism, see Moishe Postone, ‘Anti-Semitism
and National Socialism', in Germans and Jews since the Holocaust:
the changing situation in West Germany, ed. Anson Rabinach/Jack
Zipes, New York and London 1986. We do not, however, want to suggest that
J18 is anti-Semitic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
General info: Reclaim the Streets: 0171 281 4621; rts@gn.apc.org
LONDON MEETING EVERY TUESDAY 7pm - Cock Tavern pub, Phoenix Road, Euston.
(Euston Tube)
###################################
June 18th 1999: for further info visit: www.j18.org
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
For info on RTS, subscribe to <allsorts@gn.apc.org>,
specifying "RTS only"
To receive info on general direct action etc. stuff, subscribe to
<allsorts@gn.apc.org>,
specifying "allsorts"
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Reclaim the Streets: PO BOX 9656, London N4 4JY.
NOTE NEW WEBSITE ADDRESS! - http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
last updated: December 29, 2004
|
