Is rioting counter prductive?

[butchersapron]

I think that constituted (if it constituted anything at all) a very small part of that realization - what counted far more was the widespread non-payment - lets not forget that nearly a fifth of the eligible population refused to pay it.

That said, one can go on about the Poll Tax rather too much - they did get the money out of us by other, more devious, means, after all.

Yes, that was a massive part of it too (not the most important bit i agree) - but it can't be mechanically seperated from the riots.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Riots are a necessary stimulant to the bread and the circus sectors of the economy.

 

[invisibleplanet]

My court case for refusal to pay was a riot

 

[dennisr]

Yes, that was a massive part of it too (not the most important bit i agree) - but it can't be mechanically seperated from the riots.

The problem is that 'rioting' is usually artificially and mechanically added to the list of tactics when folk ask how the poll tax was defeated while the mass non-payment campaign is forgotten.

The result is folk do not learn a basic lesson in how to defeat repressive laws rather than how to express their anger (but often end up reinforcing in repressive laws)

The poll tax was defeated by civil disobedience by millions - by the non-payment campaign - not by a few hundred one-day rioters. Rioting (and for that matter any public demonstrations) expressed a mood - but it was the threat of the non-payment campaign - the threat raised by the breaking of illusions by millions of folk who were not rioting - that defeated them (primarily led by the Scots - who had the poll tax introduced a year earlier so had been geared up for longer - where there was no major riot).

i should add - that stock response when the poll tax is mentioned from so-called anarchists its also why I don't take many anarchists very seriously

 

[biff curtains]

Didn't some Socialist Party members denounce the riot on TV and promise to shop the "ringleaders"?

 

[dennisr]

Didn't some Socialist Party members denounce the riot on TV and promise to shop the "ringleaders"?

The Socialist Party did not exist at the time - a couple of then leading Militant and ABAPTU leaders - Sheridan being the one everyone knows - were backed into a corner by the media and didn't look to good. Anarchists have 're-interpreted' those comments in their own very special way ever since - to fit their own agendas. They also mentioned the possible role of agent provocoters given that the trafalger riot played perfectly into the hands of the state - it was just what the police wanted. They got more than they bargained for when they waded in though. To this day only us and RA raised that possibility

I watched the group that gave the excuse the coppers wanted to pile in (understandably angry folk - but ejets all the same - chucking cans etc at stewards) sitting down in front of downing street. I also saw and talked to many other ABAPTU members scared at what they later witnessed and pissed off with both rioters and coppers.

They didn't 'promise' to 'shop' anybody though they talked about an internal enquiry and expelling members proven to have started a riot (that could be interpreted many ways - after all some coppers were also anti-poll tax union members...) - and never did. They also stood behind those jailed despite being kept out to an extent by those running the tsdc (some of whom i worked closely with years later in antifa work weirdly enough - given the labelling of Militants as 'grasses'). They also pointed out - denounced - again and again the role of the police and the state.

The Militants were the only organised group - anarchist or socialist - who seriously took up the idea of the non-payment campaign in the beginning. Everyone else either talked bollocks from the sidelines or signed up later when they saw the response the campaign was beginning to get. That shows a very different approach to those other groups (for all their jaw, jaw) - with an aim of empowering working class people and working alongside ordinary folk who are learning through their own experience - learning about their own potential power through that process. It was the likes of Sheridan (the 'grass') who led that.

Frankly, I think the poll tax was defeated in Scotland - where it was introduced as a testing ground by the tories - the non-payment campaign did not reach anywhere near the level of self-organisation anywhere else in the british isles where it was introduced a year later. The rest of us only saw the the beginning of what would have happened if the government had stuck to thier guns. That scared the tories more than loss of votes (lets remember the poll tax was partly introduced to stop people voting anyway...) - so much so they dumped the iron lady

That is also why I made the original comment/post - I think the key lesson on tactics/strategy of the poll tax movement - something I spent years working for - was the non-payment campaign. Rioting was simply a short term spectacle - it did little to raise the confidence or recognition of real 'potential' power of working class people in their own minds. I am not opposed to rioting for any moral reasons (I can fully understand it in certain circumstances) - but it is a farce to raise rioting as some sort of tactic for anything more than the most desperate (and probably hopeless...) of situations

The following year some 'anarchists' laughably tried to 'storm' the anti-poll tax union stage as sheridan spoke at the national 'victory' rally - that was amusing to watch (and in my case steward) as well. Apparently they 'organised' especially for that attempt at 'spectacle'...

by the way - my court case never did come up - they got me confused with the hundreds of other mickey mouses on the electoral roll

 

[dash_two]

The Militants were the only organised group - anarchist or socialist - who seriously took up the idea of the non-payment campaign in the beginning.

Some points of order here.

The very first group to identify Tory reforms of the rating system as a potentially explosive issue was a tiny Scottish left-wing nationalist group headed by a man called Matt Lygate. They produced a small pamphlet on the matter, which they distributed from a stall in Glasgow city centre, a good year before the terms 'community charge' or 'poll tax' had even come into use. But no one paid them any attention, and once the poll tax firmly entered the political arena, they were too few in number to capitalise on their foresight.

Militant were definitely the major left-wing group in Scotland to be against the poll tax, and were completely consistent in their position of non-payment throughout. The SWP dithered, while the Labour Party and Communist Party tried to derail any ideas of non-payment with their feebly-titled 'Stop It!' campaign.

Militant and some of the anarchist groups in Scotland, notably in Glasgow and Edinburgh, co-operated closely on the non-payment campaign from the outset. Anarchists and Militant members from the south side of Glasgow had enjoyed reasonably friendly relations before the poll tax, and these relations were cemented further during the dispute.

In particular, Militant had no means of printing leaflets or posters locally and cheaply, whereas the anarchists in Glasgow had followed their traditional artisan inclinations and built up an impressive printing operation. The vast bulk of anti-poll tax literature in Scotland was produced by the anarchists, who churned out something approaching a million leaflets and tens of thousands of posters and newsletters. Both Militant members and anarchists were in the frontline together for actions such as occupying bailiffs' offices.

 

[butchersapron]

The ACF (as was, now AF) were doing serious poll-tax work a year before introduction in Scotland as well, thanks to links made with the above group (IIRC, and i'm not so sure it was that group...) - early to mid-88 at least.

 

[dennisr]

Militant and some of the anarchist groups in Scotland, notably in Glasgow and Edinburgh, co-operated closely on the non-payment campaign from the outset. Anarchists and Militant members from the south side of Glasgow had enjoyed reasonably friendly relations before the poll tax, and these relations were cemented further during the dispute.

In particular, Militant had no means of printing leaflets or posters locally and cheaply, whereas the anarchists in Glasgow had followed their traditional artisan inclinations and built up an impressive printing operation. The vast bulk of anti-poll tax literature in Scotland was produced by the anarchists, who churned out something approaching a million leaflets and tens of thousands of posters and newsletters. Both Militant members and anarchists were in the frontline together for actions such as occupying bailiffs' offices.

Funnily enough I was wondering if I should mention that in the previous post. The Glasgow Anarchist press kept working with the Militants despite the shanagins in London as far as I know. Sheridan strongly credited them for the work they did in his book on the poll tax. I think they were a very different kettle of fish to most of the others. Of course, individual anarchists played a key role - especially in some of the London anti-poll tax unions. Some strands of anarchism were the only other consistent force in the campaign - sadly not all

I think like the other 'trots' they love to critisise (sometimes correctly...) some anarchists got tied up in trying to prove their ready made assumptions about 'trots' rather than working together for the wider interests at stake - and that wider working class interest is where the various ideas on display can get genuinely taken up if decent or ignored if irrelevant

 

[dash_two]

The ACF (as was, now AF) were doing serious poll-tax work a year before introduction in Scotland as well, thanks to links made with the above group (IIRC, and i'm not so sure it was that group...) - early to mid-88 at least.

I'm not sure either whether there would have been such a link with Lygate's group. After his release from prison, Lygate was a rather isolated figure on the already isolated fringe of Scottish republicanism, which itself was mostly inhabited by cranks and more dubious individuals.

Very few people took Lygate seriously. Lygate had concluded his trial for bank robbery in 1972 with a rousing speech about the coming of a Scottish republic. It was commonly held that this added a good five years to his sentence. He was the sort of man whose spirits became buoyed and even grandiose if he managed to attract even a mere handful of acolytes. On his own, though, he could be pleasant and interesting to talk with.

Lygate's pamphlet on the coming poll tax was prescient, yet at the time it was dismissed locally as an obscure issue and just another of his peculiar hobbyhorses.

 

[dennisr]

The ACF (as was, now AF) were doing serious poll-tax work a year before introduction in Scotland as well, thanks to links made with the above group (IIRC, and i'm not so sure it was that group...) - early to mid-88 at least.

No one was able to much 'serious' work until the bills started turning up. All folk could do was lay the ground and put out propaganda. The Militants had the organisation and numbers that was able to take the (then...) risk of doing that ground work and putting out that propaganda in a way that registered and got an echo from folk.

I'm not saying for one second other individuals did not come to the same conclusions about the need for non-payment - the Militants were the ones who were in a position to be able to seriously apply the propaganda point in a way it could be taken up as folk began to react to events.

The serious work was the organisation - on the ground - of the anti-poll tax unions and of the non-payers on estates in scotland using the propaganda elements - the bill burning and posters - to build confidence and a mood of 'we can break this law'. That took thousands of ordinary folk with no 'political view' whatsoever to turn theories into reality.

I wish the Militants had produced a full history/analysis of the events because they will be important to know about and learn from in the future - Sheridan's book is a useful one though.

 

[butchersapron]

No one was able to much 'serious' work until the bills started turning up. All folk could do was lay the ground and put out propaganda. The Militants had the organisation and numbers that was able to take the (then...) risk of doing that ground work and putting out that propaganda in a way that registered and got an echo from folk.

I'm not saying for one second other individuals did not come to the same conclusions about the need for non-payment - the Militants were the ones who were in a position to be able to seriously apply the propaganda point in a way it could be taken up as folk began to react to events.

The serious work was the organisation - on the ground - of the anti-poll tax unions and of the non-payers on estates in scotland using the propaganda elements - the bill burning and posters - to build confidence and a mood of 'we can break this law'. That took thousands of ordinary folk with no 'political view' whatsoever to turn theories into reality.

I wish the Militants had produced a full history/analysis of the events because they will be important to know about and learn from in the future - Sheridan's book is a useful one though.

Of course, that should, go without saying - and that's the serious work i was referring to.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not sure either whether there would have been such a link with Lygate's group. After his release from prison, Lygate was a rather isolated figure on the already isolated fringe of Scottish republicanism, which itself was mostly inhabited by cranks and more dubious individuals.

Very few people took Lygate seriously. Lygate had concluded his trial for bank robbery in 1972 with a rousing speech about the coming of a Scottish republic. It was commonly held that this added a good five years to his sentence. He was the sort of man whose spirits became buoyed and even grandiose if he managed to attract even a mere handful of acolytes. On his own, though, he could be pleasant and interesting to talk with.

Lygate's pamphlet on the coming poll tax was prescient, yet at the time it was dismissed locally as an obscure issue and just another of his peculiar hobbyhorses.

Yep, i edited the post as wasn't sure it was him/them, the info that sparked it might well have been though.

 

[jæd]

Their knowledge that they couldn't win with the Poll Tax and Thatcher was based on serious stuff: what their constituents and everyone else told them, by-election results and properly conducted opinion polls. It wasn't based on what happened between a couple of hundred pissed scruffs and a similar number of truncheon-happy plod one day.

I'd have thought the tightening up of protest laws was a more direct response to the poll-tax riots, etc. So I'd say, yep, riots are counter-productive...

 

[dennisr]

Of course, that should, go without saying - and that's the serious work i was referring to.

I agree - it should go without saying, Butcher's - but a decade+ on folk think that a one-day riot had some relevance in defeating the tax so I end up having to re-state the obvious

 

[urbanrevolt]

The mass non-payment campaign certainly played a big part but to deny the one day demo/riot did not have relevance is going far too far.

In itself it made a huge difference. Of course without the mass campaign the demo would not have been built for so if dennisr si trying to argue against it was just the riot fair enough but a mass militant demo with serious and determined resistance played a huge part in defeating the poll tax and we shouldn't forget it.

 

[dennisr]

The mass non-payment campaign certainly played a big part but to deny the one day demo/riot did not have relevance is going far too far.

In itself it made a huge difference. Of course without the mass campaign the demo would not have been built for so if dennisr si trying to argue against it was just the riot fair enough but a mass militant demo with serious and determined resistance played a huge part in defeating the poll tax and we shouldn't forget it.

I'll repeat the obvious - my first post:

The problem is that 'rioting' is usually artificially and mechanically added to the list of tactics when folk ask how the poll tax was defeated while the mass non-payment campaign is forgotten.

The result is folk do not learn a basic lesson in how to defeat repressive laws rather than how to express their anger (but often end up reinforcing in repressive laws)

The poll tax was defeated by civil disobedience by millions - by the non-payment campaign - not by a few hundred one-day rioters. Rioting (and for that matter any public demonstrations) expressed a mood - but it was the threat of the non-payment campaign - the threat raised by the breaking of illusions by millions of folk who were not rioting - that defeated them (primarily led by the Scots - who had the poll tax introduced a year earlier so had been geared up for longer - where there was no major riot).

i should add - that stock response when the poll tax is mentioned from so-called anarchists its also why I don't take many anarchists very seriously

Should I add you to the last paragraph?

'Serious and determined resistance" my arse - it was a one-day circus, a fun day out that has been hyped up by fantasists ever since who were probably a) not even there or b) its the only big event in their lives. If you want to see determined resistance you are looking at the wrong events. Millions determinedly broke the law and broke with their own illusions as to the neutrality of the law and the police and the state - it was a big step for them and the vast majority were not even on that demonstration. You are too easily swayed by a bit of excitment urban.

 

[urbanrevolt]

I think I have made it clear- the mass demo/riot played a big role in defeating the poll tax, but could only do so on the back of the mass non-payment campaign.

It's not absolutely obvious what you are arguing but you seem to be suggesting that the riot/demo played no role- just expressed a mood. if
there hadn't been a riot that day the poll tax would probably still have been defeated but it helped put the boot in to that tax and thatcher fairly well.

I'm certainly not an anarchist so-called or otherwise. I'm a socialist.

 

[dennisr]

I think I have made it clear- the mass demo/riot played a big role in defeating the poll tax, but could only do so on the back of the mass non-payment campaign.

It's not absolutely obvious what you are arguing but you seem to be suggesting that the riot/demo played no role- just expressed a mood. if
there hadn't been a riot that day the poll tax would probably still have been defeated but it helped put the boot in to that tax and thatcher fairly well.

I'm certainly not an anarchist so-called or otherwise. I'm a socialist.

The mood of opposition (that the riot and many other demonstrations etc expressed) played a role in defeating the poll tax - yes, I know you are a socialist so your illusions should surprise me somewhat. The riot in itself achieved feck all beyond shocking people with the level of anger it expressed. You could argue that the severity of the riot (in british terms anyway) helped to get that publicity across - thats it - the big role by far was elsewhere - mass non-payment - and has been quietly covered up ever since. Its that element that socialists should point out - because of the lessons that can be learnt - so that is what I was doing.

to add - the riot gave the state the excuse to 'put the boot in' (I hope you were not hyperventilating when you used that turn of phrase) into then existing civil liberties - another point socialists would make.

to further add: I agree with your point that "if there hadn't been a riot that day the poll tax would probably still have been defeated" - and we could even have gone to a qualitively different level of class struggle as mass non-payment turned into something much heavier than a piddly wee riot - something socialists would support

and finally... (from the other earlier post):

That is also why I made the original comment/post - I think the key lesson on tactics/strategy of the poll tax movement - something I spent years working for - was the non-payment campaign. Rioting was simply a short term spectacle - it did little to raise the confidence or recognition of real 'potential' power of working class people in their own minds. I am not opposed to rioting for any moral reasons (I can fully understand it in certain circumstances) - but it is a farce to raise rioting as some sort of tactic for anything more than the most desperate (and probably hopeless...) of situations

 

[dennisr]

it helped put the boot in to that tax and thatcher fairly well.

urban, you are a revolutionary socialist - take the example of the recent riots in France - can you explain how they assisted the development of the class struggle?

 

[The Black Hand]

Just a point cos I couldn't be bothered to wade through this thread at the minute - plus I've got a kid telling me to get off the computer

Rioting is never counterproductive. I can't think of one scrap/riot since 1980 in the UK (the time I am familiar with really) that hasn't been worthwhile. Some more than others I agree, but the problem is that there is not enough of them there are not enough people willing to disobey and confront the police. Unlike in France, Italy etc...

 

[biff curtains]

The ACF (as was, now AF) were doing serious poll-tax work a year before introduction in Scotland as well, thanks to links made with the above group (IIRC, and i'm not so sure it was that group...) - early to mid-88 at least.

Haringey Solidarity Group was born out of the resistance (non payment/rioting) to the poll tax and during the campaign had hundreds of members, thousands of contacts and meetings and actions every week.

Although I wasn't around I hear there were no Millies in Haringey and if there were they didn't get involved in the HAPTUs.

 

[urbanrevolt]

On France- I'm not sure entirely out of a general and regrettable ignorance of the concrete situation there. I imagine the opressed black youth had had enough of police racism and general poverty and shit. Rioting in and of itself isn't necessarily productive and of course can be an act of desperation. If the workers' movement in France had had a joint campaign with the immigrant and Black communities against poverty, privatisation, racism, war, attacks on civil liberties etc then we should argue for strikes under workers and community control, militant demonstrations, occcupations etc. You can bet these would be turned into riots by the state's reaction. Militant self-defence against police attack is entirely justified- burning shops, and general rampage isn't. But I really don't knwo the specifcs of the French 'riots' (I do about the so-called Oldham riots- they were riots instigated by the police and the mainly Asian youth were entirely justified in their self-defence.

The poll tax-

the anti-poll tax unions on many working class estates, the mass campaign of non-payment were overall what won it. The 250 000 strong demo that became the riot was the crowning momenet of this movement - it was built for by the mass movement- mainly with Militant but obviously not everywhere.

But the demo was I would suggest a major plank in overthrowing the hated tax and the militancy of the crowd, determined to defend themsleves against vicious police attack quite justified. Perhaps dennisr's reticence is due to the fact that the fore-runners of the SP, the Militant did not defend the demo either on tha day or in the subsequent tabloid witch-hunt and indeed Tommy Sheirdan disgracefully said 'names will be named' to shop protestors to the police- a statement never repudiated by Militant.

 

[agricola]

they were riots instigated by the police and the mainly Asian youth were entirely justified in their self-defence.

i think you need to check out the history of the riots more, if you are making comments such as that

 

[urbanrevolt]

I beg to differ. I was working in Oldham at the time and very heavily involved in the antiracist antifascist movement but don't let that get in the way of a stereotype

the 'riot' came about because police arrested Asian youth defending themselves against fascist attack and then the police went on a general offensive- in that context the burning barricades and missiles were entirely legitimate against further attacks

 

[dennisr]

But the demo was I would suggest a major plank in overthrowing the hated tax and the militancy of the crowd, determined to defend themsleves against vicious police attack quite justified. Perhaps dennisr's reticence is due to the fact that the fore-runners of the SP, the Militant did not defend the demo either on tha day or in the subsequent tabloid witch-hunt and indeed Tommy Sheirdan disgracefully said 'names will be named' to shop protestors to the police- a statement never repudiated by Militant.

i would suggest you misunderstand the nature of actual mass movements. i would suggest that the riot was simply an incoate expression of anger. you have sadly ignored all the points patiently made about the limits of this specific event and instead resort to repeating (not for the first time if i remember) a pathetic distortion a decade to late and a decade unproven. i did not condemn the rioters (i was among them after the police attacked) i questioned the ridiculous idea that this riot was a sensible tactic. I would also question your simplistic view of the actual events, presumably part of your attempt to make actual events fit your personal mechanistic presumptions (the language you use alone gives that away...)

perhaps your lack of 'reticence' is more to do with your personal riot porn fantasies (alongside the usual ultra left desire to prove your equally fantasy 'revolutionary' credentials or illusions depending on one's point of view) rather than any genuine socialist understanding of the nature of real mass movements?

why should the Militants repudiate a distorted lie - why would they be interested in impressing you and both your mates when they were in a position of leadership of a real mass movement?

the thing is urban - the anarchist critisisms are generally quite naive - whereas you, and your 'revolutionary fantasist' mates are actually quite poisonous and divisive (for your own sectarian reasons - lets be frank you will be repeating this rubbish in one innuendo laden form or another till the end of time as a replacement for answers to the genuine questions i raised about the limits of the poll tax riot won't you?

 

[urbanrevolt]

Mmm..

I think a lot of the above is quite unproven and a little over the top- 'riot porn fantasies'? Give me a break.


I hope I am not just making personal mechanistic presumptions but then if I'm so limited it would be hard for me to realise it wouldn't it? Actually of course you're just venting steam... but why get so heated to start with?

All I'm saying is that we do need to build mass movements firmly rooted in the communities and workplaces. In these militant tactics such as pickets and demonstrations have a place- this is not advocating rioting but we have to be ready to defend ourselves. The state and its media will always try to make situations of mass resistance into riots and violence. We must be ready in a very disciplined way to respond- that discipline includes identifying the main instigators of the violence (the state) and not assisting the state's plocie on fitting up 'rioters' (because even when there is evidence it will be exaggerated and even when there isn't it will be invented).

Of course even if we were actually there on the day not everyone sees everything that goes on. Is rioting a sensible tactic? No. (Did I claim it was? but anyway let's get dragged into secondary matters). Is a mass militant demo committed to being peaceful but also committed to direct action a good way to go? Often yes-if you have the forces to pull it off. In 1990 I'd say it was a good tactic (to be clear the mass demo) built for by the patient and necessary work of the mass movement of non-payment.

The police attacked the demo. Under such conditions people are right to defend themselves. Of course not everyone involved was just acting in self-defence but that was the main political point- unprovoked police attack, legitiamte defence.

If you're saying that Sheridan didn't say that well that's something Militant at the time didn't actually claim they just ignored it. If it was a lie or actually in this case a mistake they should have said so and disciplined him.

So just o labour it one more time- is ioting counter-productive? If we just go out to organise a ruck then yes it is counter-productive from th epoint of view of getting real social change but organising mass movements including mass demos with the aim of being peaceful but committed to direct action and organised defence- yes those sort of movements are productive and do change things.

 

[looneytune]

I think one thing I have learned is that "rioting" as I used to understand it - ie, people spontaneously committing random acts of violence in order to prove a point - does not really exist. Every riot I've ever seen or been in has been started and finished by police or public brutality against protestors.
So for the most part I don't think riots are meant to be productive - they're just an unplanned reaction to violence. Rigth?

 

[dennisr]

I think one thing I have learned is that "rioting" as I used to understand it - ie, people spontaneously committing random acts of violence in order to prove a point - does not really exist. Every riot I've ever seen or been in has been started and finished by police or public brutality against protestors.
So for the most part I don't think riots are meant to be productive - they're just an unplanned reaction to violence. Rigth?

My experience too

 

[dennisr]

... but why get so heated to start with?

sometimes its better to push back - polarise the questions - before the other side gets carried away. Think of it as a sort of 'virtual self-defence' - but not a particularly heated one

In the case of the traf sq riot one had to both defend the self-defence element while carefully avoiding the trap being laid by the media of wanting to show the riot was what the 'extremist' organisers intended or wanted to provoke themselves. That was all sheridan was - maybe clumsily but nethertheless legitimately - trying to do. Despite this obvious fact ejets repeat the rubbish as 'fact'. There was not reason to 'discipline' him - certainly not at the behest of those who remain irrelevent - either the armchair 'revolutionary critics' or the type of anarchist who also claim rioting is a sufficient act in and of itself.

So just o labour it one more time- is ioting counter-productive? If we just go out to organise a ruck then yes it is counter-productive from th epoint of view of getting real social change but organising mass movements including mass demos with the aim of being peaceful but committed to direct action and organised defence- yes those sort of movements are productive and do change things.

which is what the original comments I made express - you initially said i went "far to far" - i was countering a popular illusion among certain anarcho/leftie types who mistake necessary self-defence as being the same as violence for the sake of it. I think one has to be clear and sharp on that point.

I think you in your first post, maybe unintentionally, muddied the waters for your own reasons and i'm glad you have clarified (above) but still cannot see how this ties in with your earlier view that the riot (as opposed to the mass demo) was an important factor in secureing the defeat of the poll tax? Just ended up with a lot of dissappointed folk being sent down. I would condemn those who stand on the sidelines cheering while these folk naively left themselves open to being done. And lets make my view clear - I am not angry with them for rioting (even if I don't think it was too clever what they were doing and will say so) - I am angry they were in effect being used in an attempt to discredit the anti poll tax movement (conciously by some - unconciously by others).