We want a Tank for DSEi!

[In Bloom]

Does this revolutionising stuff always have to be so serious though?

Do you know what, fuck it, I'm just going to say it. Yes.

This isn't a fucking game.

 

[In Bloom]

Given your [Taxamo's] sub-Bonehead position on borders & immigration

Can I have some of your crack?

Fucking hell.

 

[Raw SslaC]

Does this revolutionising stuff always have to be so serious though?

even the boys in ww1 managed to have a game of footie in no-mans land, surely the space hijackers are allowed the odd game of anticap vs capitalist cricket without the thought police jumping on them.

or must we all go round being miserable fuckers until the revolution delivers us into the anarchist utopia?

But this IS what the SH are, it wasn't just a single "event" to have a bit of fun. Hence my weariness of associating them to political action. I have no problems with SH per se, just don't put out that somehow this IS a political/social struggle its not.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Does this revolutionising stuff always have to be so serious though?

even the boys in ww1 managed to have a game of footie in no-mans land, surely the space hijackers are allowed the odd game of anticap vs capitalist cricket without the thought police jumping on them.

or must we all go round being miserable fuckers until the revolution delivers us into the anarchist utopia?

its not the odd game though is it, its all a game. I'm in what is apparently the most boring dull as shite anarcho group cos it will at some point try and talk to you about communism and publishes serious political commentary. Last weekend we put on a squat party so hilariously punk it had a urinal made of traffic cones and an oil drum the month before than we were on picket lines with posties, and we have also even dressed up in outifts for a very popular anti-military stunt. There isn't silly wing and a serious wing, its the same people. Its also massively helpful doing the more fun stuff cos then whenever anyone starts thinking that anarchism is a wacky lifestyle full of pranks and parties you can step in to set them straight - which we couldn't do if we just boycotted anything that might look a bit naff.

I will outline our attitude towards actions and activities like the SH once and for all forthwith.

Right, what follows is an assessment of a big mixed action which was essentially an attempt at a old school 90's mass action a la RTS but this time about the war. It may be specific to that in some ways but it lays out a lot general points about our attitudes to this sort of thing. You will notice if you read it, that this is NOT A DISMISSAL of the action but constructive criticism.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Reflections On Sackparliament

On Monday October the 9th AF members from different regions participated in the Sack Parliament action. The action was disastrous; chaotic, confusing and worst of all dangerous. Almost 40 people were arrested under the new exclusion zone laws, and one independent camera man was hospitalized by a police charge. It was both demoralizing for the participants and confusing for the public .. in many ways it represented the worst of ..activism...

AF members were involved out of solidarity with the organisers and the intentions of the action, and despite what happened on the day we think the idea behind it was justified and creative. We do not think this trend of ..direct action.. is particularly important, but reserve our criticisms for the planning and on-the-ground actions that day.

The Ideas Behind Sackparliament

Sackparliament was an initiative that came out of a group of students and anti-authoritarians who had attempted direct actions on the Lebanon war demo..s over the summer. Whilst we think their politics are so wide you could throw an aircraft carrier through them, their actions have been completely justified. They correctly see the anti-war movement as a mass movement. At times this has been undeniable, with several polls returning a majority opposed to the war in Iraq, and the numbers on the streets on February 15th 2003 were the biggest ever. The ..Day X.. actions, combined with developments like the school students strikes, showed a potential move towards mass direct action. The most important thing anarchists could have done was try and move the ideas of the anti-war movement away from the ideas of lobbying .. which criticises only this particular government, only this particular war .. and pushed for a real demonstration .. a demonstration of the will and strength of the people united in defiance.

British anarchism was going through a time of identity crisis when the war broke. Burned out from the development of Reclaim The Streets and radical ecology into the anticapitalist movement of Seattle and Genoa, those behind RTS and the Mayday riots were seeing fewer people turn up to their events .. and theirs was movement that relied entirely on events. Many young anarchists who would have taken the helm of a new movement saw little point in activism from a class perspective. Subsequently, there was no fusion of the anticapitalist movement and its tactics with the anti-war movement, apart from at the top where it never counted - in the NGO's, Charities and socialist parties. In a lot of ways it's real shame.

Event based activism is pointless when the problems of capitalism and the class system need a long term opposition from the people they fuck over - the working class. Its capitalism that causes wars, and it's the working class that get sent to fight and die after all. Given the choice between a political strike at an arms factory and a non-violent activist blockade of the arms factory, we would want a strike. But given the choice between the blockade and sweet fuck all, we support a blockade. If the war is a class issue, support its opponents as long as they are not endorsing a political party or another form of dominance.

On this basis then, Sackparliament was something we were willing to engage with. Mostly on the strength of one of their last actions .. leafleting children being taken to an army recruitment fair with information like ..25% of rough sleepers used to be in the army... This is engaging with normal people at the point of contact with the war, where it counts. Also, kicking off outside the American Embassy on the Lebanon demo..s was justified, if a bit stupid without the numbers. Its more something you hope would happen anyway rather than something you call for!

All sackparliament propaganda was good stuff, when you consider its purpose. It was meant to unite all those against the war rather than anarchists and lefties without coming across as lobbying. It also was well produced and had a cracking sense of humour; one flier was a spoof tax return for the government from ..Inland Revenge... All MPs received a spoof P45 on the day too.

Unsurprisingly we think that no matter how good the prop was, there is not much point in isolated stunts rather than trying to build long term resistance, and we do not consider the two paths to be exclusive. Stunts and actions are fine if they feed into the wider struggle, and sackparliament might have.


(put hands on your head and lie down) On The Ground

What was seriously neglected was planning. Similarly to mayday 2003, a map with targets had been distributed and people were expected to plan actions themselves. In this case the targets were different entrances to Parliament, and the plan was for different groups to blockade different ones and delay or cancel the opening session that day. Beyond this hope, nothing was done. According to the map, the situationist inspired Space Hijackers were supposed to provide counseling for the newly sacked MPs and someone else was doing a soundsystem. Neither were in evidence on the day. Considering 500 people were not able to get a portable soundsystem into Trafalgar square this mayday and that there hasn..t been a proper soundsystem on a London action since J18 in 1999, it doesn..t seem very likely one was even secured for this venture.

The ..antiauthoritarian block.. were highly organised, meeting at several different points around London to ensure there were no tails and catching a bus into Parliament Square to avoid getting stopped on the street. Entrance to the square had been looked into properly and other routes assessed and rejected. So, we all pile out of the bus, hats and scarfs on and then... And then? Nothing. Nobody had a plan, and the original idea - to somehow blockade several entrances, we assume with our bodies .. totally contradicted the call for an antiauthoritarian (read: black) block. The block had a bit of a rush for the road, 40 people faced down 800 police, and lost. Pushed back into the square, the protestors were surrounded by police. Snatch squads were sent in, and scuffles broke out as the block tried to defend people. Eventually, if they weren..t arrested outright, those in the pen had their details taken and were charged with illegal demonstration.

Suggestions
- Tell people what you think they should do. If you want people to nonviolently blockade things, say so. Marks on maps mean nothing.

- Lead from the front. Anyone who is not a plastic anarchist is happy to take advice from someone with better knowledge; if you called the event, that..s you.

- ..Fill the Jails.. tactics do not work for issues like this. As anarchists, we generally try to avoid jails full stop.

- Get an idea of the numbers attending. Nobody had any idea. Someone speculated ..they..ll be lucky to get over 1000... The event got about 50.

- If you doubt the turnout, call it off .. or make more appropriate plan.

- Get an idea of who is attending .. and what they are capable of. If you have personal guarantees from people to attend, you can assign roles and make better plans.

- Most importantly: Have an exit strategy. Planning ended with the arrival of the block. How does that get us home and dry?

In the end, the gap between the potential and the reality of the action would make anybody feel pretty negative. It was well known that the police were going overboard for this since the Friday article in The Standard; plans should have changed. Or have been made in the first place.

Its important to be honest with yourselves when planning a confrontational action .. which this was, being illegal. Rather than just ..not condemning.. different tactics, think what you actually do want: do you want a riot or a stunt? There is nothing anarchic about having no plan.

That's All Folks

The authors acknowledge the time effort and money put into the Monday, and hope the organisers find ways of making actions like this work in future, and most importantly linking them to long term issues. See you there.

 

[absolutely]

Maybe the money for the tank would have been better spent on the No Borders Camp and/or some other venture. I always think those who have access to cash should always try spread the wealth.

Al

But it sounded like the money was raised for the tank action, rather than from some big pot of gold that the SH are hoarding.

 

[Bristly Pioneer]

The money was raised specifically for the tank action, and still is being raised, seeing as the second tank trashed our overdrafts.

As regards the hijackers and the wider anarchist movement, my feelings are like this. The hijackers is a group who meet up to plan actions around political (and some less political) themes or events. There isn't a leader, the inspiration for the actions and the responsibility for carrying them out comes randomly from the group. Anyone can suggest an idea, and once it's been knocked about by people it either gets done or rejected. The projects themselves aim to question authority, actively change heirarchy within our city, ridicule the powers that be and promote a society where people take an active role in their cities without having to go via the government or some other cronies to take action. Sounds quite a bit anarchist to me.

The DSEi tank project was, first and foremost, about raising awareness of the fair, and getting a load of press down to cover it as we felt that this was something which would raise the profile and hopefully raise numbers at the protests. On the first part we were pretty successful, the second perhaps less so. Obviously it was a big and shallow PR stunt, but that was exactly what we had planned. We mentioned this in all of the Disarm DSEi meetings (90% of which there were at least a few hijackers present) and people seemed to be pretty warm to the idea.

Now maybe our politics isn't always at the very front of what we are up to, with the cricket for example it just looks like a jolly good jape for all. But there actually quite interesting nights. The fact that a bunch of people with anarchist ideals end up arguing their position with the capitalists and all manner of other passers by during the night makes for a really interesting debate. The capitalists often end up being quite shy and embarrased about what they do, we always end up with the support of the general public, and people perhaps begin to question their stance on things a bit. Secondly the cricket is as much about public space as confronting the capitalist pig dogs. The police always turn up looking to kick people off, and often end up in huge arguments with everyone (public and capitalists included) as to why we shouldn't be allowed to play in an open space in the middle of the night. People begin to actively defend the space as theirs and question the authority of the police. All steps in the right direction, i think.

this is turning into a bit of rant so i'll wind up. Basically, as I see it, fair enough we are not the most serious part of the activist movement, but we are a part none the less, and the balance between everyone in it is what makes things exciting. Our actions work with, not instead of, everything else that is happening. We're looking to try out different tactics and perhaps inspire other people to try things as without change our movement gets stagnant. However we're not looking to lead or front anyone else. Consider us the naughty kids in the corner who've eaten too many sweets.

 

[detective-boy]

Anyone can suggest an idea, and once it's been knocked about by people it either gets done or rejected. The projects themselves aim to question authority, actively change heirarchy within our city, ridicule the powers that be and promote a society where people take an active role in their cities without having to go via the government or some other cronies to take action.

Is there not a bit of a contradiction here ... something is only done if the group agree ... that's, er, just like how society tries to work, but on a smaller (and hence more responsive) scale ... and they are your cronies ...

 

[Bristly Pioneer]

not really no,

things get done if we agree, not some semi elected body only partially accountable every 4 years. We don't have a management council or board of directors or such.

it perhaps is just how society tries (but fails) to work, seeing as MY elected cronies seem to do very little of what I would like them to do, infact often quite the opposite.

 

[Boogie Boy]

Is there not a bit of a contradiction here ... something is only done if the group agree ... that's, er, just like how society tries to work, but on a smaller (and hence more responsive) scale ... and they are your cronies ...

Is this an attempt at juvenile provocation or are you just being wilfully stupid?

BB

 

[detective-boy]

Is this an attempt at juvenile provocation or are you just being wilfully stupid?

Neither. It's a question.

And it has been kindly answered by Bristly Pioneer, thank you.

 

[detective-boy]

it perhaps is just how society tries (but fails) to work, seeing as MY elected cronies seem to do very little of what I would like them to do, infact often quite the opposite.

It's a question of scale, isn't it? A small group is able to consult everyone (literally) and, if everyone has a view, to hear everyone and then everyone knows their view has at least been heard ... but you don't have to get very big before that simply becomes impracticable and reprsentatives have to be elected ... and then people start complaining about "their" representatives not representing their views (when the best they could ever do is try and represent a majority view). This applies to everything, not just politics (as anyone who has ever tried to be the group representative at anything will agree, I'm sure!).

I've not really got any major point, by the way, it just struck me as interesting that you described as "quite a bit anarchist" seemed to be of the same template as "ordinary" society.

 

[Bristly Pioneer]

fair enough, but then again the idea of what we are up to (and I wouldn't want to speak for other anarchist groups) is that things spread laterally rather than vertically. So instead of elected representatives and higher commitees ending up as governments, we have lots and lots of smaller groups acting in their local surroundings. Smaller groups organising themselves rather than reporting back to a central command, or recieving their decisions from above.

In my view anarchism isn't always that different from everyday life in a lot of occasions. It's when things get big and organised (by governments, companies, institutions etc) that things get shite.

Bus Stops are a perfect example in my mind. Currently at Tottenham court Rd, if you want to get on a bus on a friday night you have to brave the mob and fight your way on. This represents capitalism perfectly, as soon as government control isn't present there is a rabid fight amongst people to get to the top of the pile.

On the other hand we used to have these things called bus stop queues. People would wait in line depending on who came first, if an old lady or someone needed to get on before, they would step aside and let them on. That's much more anarchist, collectively organising ourselves depending on who needed things the most.

 

[winjer]

How much closer to home do you want to hear it from Winjer?

That's funny, cause it was Raw's description of your position on No Borders that I was referring to in the earlier post, perhaps he's misinformed?

For my sins i one of the tiny few who actually does the "direct action" "protest" and the political organisation thing.

But never from a position of honest engagement (c.f. the libcom thread you posted up after that Lebanon assembly last year), so why bother?

 

[winjer]

I think the events they organise is more about themselves than the issues they say they are promoting - self-promoting is the word what I'm looking for.

To what end? If it's all about self-promotion, where has it got the SH?

Thirdly, unlike UHC in Manc who are political people but produce art/design/communication - SH are arty people who produce stage managed political protests.

'stage managed' - by who?

I always think those who have access to cash should always try spread the wealth.

What access to cash? The money for the tank was donated specifically for that, are you suggesting we should have lied about what it was going to be used for?

 

[Fruitloop]

It's a question of scale, isn't it? A small group is able to consult everyone (literally) and, if everyone has a view, to hear everyone and then everyone knows their view has at least been heard ... but you don't have to get very big before that simply becomes impracticable and reprsentatives have to be elected ... and then people start complaining about "their" representatives not representing their views (when the best they could ever do is try and represent a majority view). This applies to everything, not just politics (as anyone who has ever tried to be the group representative at anything will agree, I'm sure!).

I've not really got any major point, by the way, it just struck me as interesting that you described as "quite a bit anarchist" seemed to be of the same template as "ordinary" society.

The anarchist ideal is that people should make their own decisions in the matters that effect them, not that they should elect representatives to make centralised decisions on behalf of everybody. The problem with the present system is that you only get one vote every few years (which hardly does justice to the many different issues that government decides on), the policies of the parties with a serious chance at power are almost identical on all important matters, and once in Westminster they are more influenced by private lobbying and the party whip system than the interests of their constituents. Also most people in an FPP system live in safe seats where the same thing happens regardless of whether they turn up or not, and the politicians efforts are in the main concentrated on narrow demographics within a few key swing marginals.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

I was actually very concerned to see your treatment at the hands of thr filth recently, and expected to be able to make things up with you forthwith. However after months and months, you are back here to argue with me, of all people, when the points i have made are coming from all corners.

If you don't want to bury the hatchet then fine, you are a ridiculous person


so lets get on with it:

That's funny, cause it was Raw's description of your position on No Borders that I was referring to in the earlier post, perhaps he's misinformed?

No Raw is not misinformed on me, but i'm talking about his opinion of the spacehijackers posted here. In writing, right there. Lets talk about that.

But never from a position of honest engagement (c.f. the libcom thread you posted up after that Lebanon assembly last year), so why bother?

wtf this means i have no idea. I've supported countless silly stunts way more than a lot of the people who are fully behind them have, what you mean by honest... FUCK IT. Just read what i fucking wrote on sackparliament above, jesus.

My opinion on No Borders is its a shit name, and i don't agree with putting forward open borders as a solution to fuck all under capitalism. I believe that communities should manage themselves, which means they should have a say in hopusing and resource allocation - not the state, not the local council and definitely not a group of lentil weavers shouting NO BORDERS NO NATIONS at them. I have the utmost support for the immigrant defence side of NB, that is crucial. I think the name however is misleading. You want to organise, not destroy: you don't start a group at your workplace called No Money do you?

This position will be laid out in full in article soon.

Raw would not have described this as 'sub-bonehead'. A bonehead is a nazi skinhead. This person believes in white supremacy. How the fuck thats related to what i have said, which is essentially communalist anarchism, is a question whoever administers the medication you're on can answer.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

But never from a position of honest engagement (c.f. the libcom thread you posted up after that Lebanon assembly last year), so why bother?

I spent 2 years in and out of court for a lock on NVDA against an israeli import company. That followed a week spent on hunger strike to try and get some attention to a hunger strike going on in Israeli jails. That followed 3 months spent when most of my mates were interailing and getting stoned in amsterdam spent doing NVDA in the West Bank.

But never from a position of honest engagement! I did it all so i could laugh about later on libcom of course!

you really are fucking dick.

 

[winjer]

I was actually very concerned to see your treatment at the hands of thr filth recently, and expected to be able to make things up with you forthwith. However after months and months, you are back here to argue with me, of all people, when the points i have made are coming from all corners.

I'm raising this with you because I can never understand the disconnect between what you say in person, and what you subsequently describe on here, libcom, etc. I totally fail to understand your antipathy towards SH, I can only assume that you have the same misconceptions about who is involved as Raw (cf. 'arty people').

Just read what i fucking wrote on sackparliament above, jesus.

That's a good example, as far as I know you didn't raise any of those concerns in the meeting about the @-block, and you write about it as though you were completely outside of that process. Where's the self-criticism?

My opinion on No Borders is its a shit name, and i don't agree with putting forward open borders as a solution to fuck all under capitalism. I believe that communities should manage themselves, which means they should have a say in hopusing and resource allocation - not the state, not the local council and definitely not a group of lentil weavers shouting NO BORDERS NO NATIONS at them.

That's considerably more sensible than what Raw described.

Raw would not have described this as 'sub-bonehead'. A bonehead is a nazi skinhead.

I forgot I wrote that, it was uncalled for, and I take it back. However, what Raw described was close to something Griffin would say.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

I'm raising this with you because I can never understand the disconnect between what you say in person, and what you subsequently describe on here, libcom, etc. I totally fail to understand your antipathy towards SH, I can only assume that you have the same misconceptions about who is involved as Raw (cf. 'arty people').

there is no gap, imho. I have always given you shit, maybe unfairly, in person about the space invaders. I may well be labouring under misconceptions, but to be honest i can argue on the strength of the posts on this thread alone; You don't need to have met a space invader to join the debate.

That's a good example, as far as I know you didn't raise any of those concerns in the meeting about the @-block, and you write about it as though you were completely outside of that process. Where's the self-criticism?

the whole thing is a self criticism. There isn't much on where i went wrong in planning, cos i wasn't involved in the planning. I met up with people a couple of times i think, but i always assumed (wrongly) that someone had a plan to revealed on the day. Please note, i call for more of this type of thing at the end. I actually rate the idea of creative protest. I just have some proviso's

If i am involved in planning an action, you better believe i raise organisational concerns lol Ask me abt this in person...

That's considerably more sensible than what Raw described.

really? Thats all i've ever said on it

I'd avoid criticising people on things other people have said about those people, if you see what i mean! I do get where you 2 are coming from, i'm easily to the right of RAW, that's not very hard! I'm not actually a fascist though, surprisingly.

I forgot I wrote that, it was uncalled for, and I take it back.

well cheers.

I'll ask raw about the other thing when i see him.

 

[Boogie Boy]

My opinion on No Borders is its a shit name, and i don't agree with putting forward open borders as a solution to fuck all under capitalism. I believe that communities should manage themselves, which means they should have a say in hopusing and resource allocation - not the state, not the local council and definitely not a group of lentil weavers shouting NO BORDERS NO NATIONS at them. I have the utmost support for the immigrant defence side of NB, that is crucial. I think the name however is misleading. You want to organise, not destroy: you don't start a group at your workplace called No Money do you?

This position will be laid out in full in article soon.

/QUOTE]

TW,

As someone who has been involved with No Borders for some time (and someone who can't abide lentils) I would be interested in reading the article which details further the position that you propose to outline above. Can you let me know where I (we) can read this, and possibly, hopefully respond to the analysis which you seek to provide?

If necessary, pm me with details?

BB

 

[Taxamo Welf]

it will either go on the (upcoming) AF blog or be a pices in Organise! our mag

[it will only represent my opinion, the majority of the AF fully support every aspect of no borders, from name to analysis]