We're writing this to you to try and prevent the anti-cuts struggle being split up and weakened by the media.
We are anarchists (well, anarcho-syndicalists, technically) – a word that is much misunderstood and misrepresented. We are also students, workers and shop stewards. We co-organised a 'Radical Workers Bloc' on the South London feeder march. The aim was to provide a highly visible radical presence within the workers movement of which we are a part, advocating strikes, occupations and civil disobedience.
Saturday's demonstration was far bigger than anyone expected, and saw thousands go beyond a simple A-B stroll to take direct action. The UK Uncut actions on Oxford Street and in occupying Fortnum and Masons provoked harsh treatment from police, including mass arrests.
When we reached Trafalgar Square, we headed for Oxford Street for the 2pm actions to put some of these words into action (anarchist and UK Uncutter were not mutually exclusive on the day!). When we arrived, we met up with other anarchists who had had the same idea. Wary of being kettled, we chose to stay mobile, causing disruption on Oxford St and the surrounding area, including to UK Uncut targets which were closed and guarded by riot police. Subsequently, several banks, the Ritz and other buildings were damaged or hit by paint bombs. There were some minor scuffles with police. There is a valid debate to be had over tactics - which ones further the anti-cuts movement or are counter-productive - and many of us would favour mass direct action over property destruction. Let's have that debate within the anti-cuts struggle, and not let the media divide us.
But think about it from the store owners' point of view: a broken window may cost £1,000. A lost Saturday's trade through a peaceful occupation would cost many times more. Perhaps this helps explain the harsh police response to the UK Uncut occupation: it hits them where it hurts, in the pocket. Traditionally, workers have used the weapon of the strike to achieve this. But what about workers with no unions, or unions unwilling to strike? What about students, the unemployed? UK Uncut actions have been very successful at involving such people in economically disruptive action – and this seems to be on the right track in terms of forcing the government to back down on its cuts agenda. More and bigger actions in this vein will be needed to stop the cuts (in France, they call these 'economic blockades'). Like those in UK Uncut, we recognise that just marching from A to B or waiting for the government to be fair is not enough. The government, rich and tax avoiders will continue to seek to make the poorest in society pay for the defecit unless we make doing so the more expensive option. As UK Uncut announced on the demonstration 29th January "If the economy disrupts our lives, then we must disrupt the economy".
The press coverage since Saturday has gone into a well-rehearsed frenzy of 'good protestor/bad protestor'. Some UK Uncutters have expressed outrage at being lumped in with the 'bad protestors', (correctly) stressing the peaceful nature of the F&M occupation. We think the whole idea of dividing 'good' and 'bad' protest serves only to legitimise police violence and repression. As we saw on Saturday, repression is not provoked by violent actions, but by effective actions – there is a long history of peaceful pickets and occupations being violently broken up by police, from the Chartists to the Miners Strike. Indeed, UK Uncut have frequently been at the blunt end of this in recent memory yourselves, with police responding to non-violent occupations with pepper spray and violent arrests.
In this light, we would say keep up the good work. Let the mass arrests strengthen your resolve not deter you. And let’s not fall into the divide-and-rule tactics that are the oldest trick in the rich’s book. If we can help or offer any practical solidarity to the arrestees, please get in touch. We’ve previously hosted legal advice and training sessions with Fitwatch and the Legal Defence and Monitoring Group – we’d be happy to do this again. Or if the arrests are causing problems with employers, we'll help arrestees organise against victimisation. On Saturday most of the arrestees were UK Uncut activists. Next time it could be us. We – those of us fighting the cuts – are all in this together.
Signed, Brighton Solidarity Federation
Plus individuals from: Northampton, North London, Manchester, Thames Valley, Liverpool and South London Locals (our federal democratic structure means statements can only be issued in the name of a group if the group has had the opportunity to discuss it, and time is against us!)
Comments
'On Saturday most of the
'On Saturday most of the "arrestees" were UK Uncut activists. Next time it could be us. We – those of us fighting the cuts – are all in this together.'
People who were peaceful, didn't cause distress or violence were arrested, and are now being grouped in police figures with violent protesters. Which, in turn, is being used by the government and media as a tool to make the public think that a peaceful protest group are violent. How is that right?
Why not stage your own protest instead of following UKUncut? You say "...Wary of being kettled, we chose to stay mobile, causing disruption on Oxford St and the surrounding area, including to UK Uncut targets which were closed and guarded by riot police."
Targeting areas that were known to be UKUncut targets, which causes your protests to be linked with a peaceful group. How is this right? Why not protest the next day? Did you plan to cause this violence- and put the media spot on yourselves instead of the important message of CUTS- in the knowledge that the police would be busy with other people marching and protests so you would be less likely in getting caught?
I'm pleased that so many people protested, but I am unhappy in the violent way you acted which has taken the media spotlight away from the key message (and point of the march).
"Targeting areas that were
"Targeting areas that were known to be UKUncut targets, which causes your protests to be linked with a peaceful group. How is this right? Why not protest the next day?"
"I'm pleased that so many people protested, but I am unhappy in the violent way you acted which has taken the media spotlight away from the key message (and point of the march)."
This surprises me a little to hear this, as this is pretty the exact argument that those in the Labour Party and TUC hostile to taking any effective action have been using against UK Uncut!
Of course the people involved in the disorder are opposed to the cuts - why else would we have been out on the day? If we were really the violence junkies that the media like to paint us as, I think the last place we'd choose to smash up would be one of the most heavily CCTVed areas of the country, whilst record numbers of police were out in force.
The message only becomes the violence if we accept the narrative of good and bad forms of protest that the establishment want to push onto us - do you really think if UK Uncut were to condemn the horrible violent anarchists that then suddenly all attention would be solely on their cause? Of course not - UK Uncut threaten the plans and interests of the government and ruling class in pushing the costs of austerity onto the working class, and they'll continue to demonise you. The best way to fight this is to stand together in when any of us are attacked. This is what solidarity means.
This argument is damn right.
FG: we did stage our own
FG: we did stage our own protest (a bloc on the feeder march from Kennington Park), and stayed away from the UK Uncut actions on Oxford St (it's a long road!). It's horrible that UK Uncut activists were arrested on mass. But that isn't the fault of anarchists, it's the fault of the police who lied to people, then arrested them and held them for nearly 24 hours before turfing them out without clothes or phones. Police have maltreated UK Uncutters before in the absence of parallel anarchist marches.
For the record, to my knowledge no SolFed members were involved in the criminal damage, there's a difference between an unauthorised breakaway demonstration and violence! But that said, it's not helpful to condemn others over tactical differences, or for choosing to physically resist riot police, however strongly and sincerely those differences are felt. Divided we fall.
Interestingly, something similar has been posted on the Guardian Comment is Free.
"Why not stage your own
We didn't cause any violence?
Direct action, hurting the
"People who were peaceful,
To address these two seperate point - The police don't care about any kind of seperation - either ideological or organisational - between protesters and causes. The fact that you are there is enough for them. In fact, quite apart from any real political point, speaking as both a Trade Unionist and participant in a few Uncut actions in my area, I've been really quite alarmed by the primness adopted by alot of protesters involved in Saturday's action, now that the pressure and the scrutiny is on and the campaign actions and methods are being given serious media coverage that, until now, was slightly tokenistic.
You will remember that even before Saturday, the police haven't needed much excuse to try and clamp down on Uk Uncut protests - they've been there the whole time, they didn't need the presence of a Black Bloc to arrest the F&M occupiers, and they certainly didn't need the destruction of private property to end Saturday night in a vicious kettle - actually, the student protests of December, and reflection back on your own experience of policing during UK Uncut Occupations (tear-gas anyone?) should have already informed you of this reality. They've been doing this for more than 6 months. Anyone in their right mind knows that Uk Uncut actions are peaceful occupations - the ideological distinctions in Saturday's actions were as clear as night and day - and if you have a problem with Corporate Media distortions, then you should focus your attention on this, and not falling for the divide-and-conquer routine.
You second point, is a bit hypocritical; the TUC has been organising the main march and demo since at least last October, and knowing that the figures were bound to be high, no protest group/association worth their salt would have missed the opportunity (quite rightly) - UK Uncut piggybacked off the mainstream march as much as anyone else on the feeder marches/demos (note the mock-up on the 'Occupying the Alternative' flyers), and the criticism 'why don't you get your own events?' sounds just as pompous and cliquish coming an Uncutter as it does now it's started to come from members of the TUC-affiliate groups. Think of it like a prism, the annoyance or anger of people complaining about 'minorities taking over the day and it's publicity for own agenda' - it's counter-productive, and reflects back how pompous the TUC sounds when it complains about the same thing. If anything, this isolationism of seeing the 26th March as being the province of one's own group/tactics/targets over anyone else's is both ridiculous and hilarious, and it's very, very destructive. I can understand why some people may have objections about other groups and their tactics, but this is not the time for division, there's too much at stake.Well said. I'm saddened by
It's also important to
It's also important to remember that not all anarchists are blac bloc. I'm a SolFed member and I didn't wear a mask all day on the 26th. It's an issue of tactics NOT one of morality.
Just watching the Guardian
Just watching the Guardian video from the Green and Black Cross. The cops lied - said they were waiting for UK Uncutters 'safety', when in fact they were waiting to move in buses for mass arrest. Classic divide and rule - don't fall for it!
Also, just to point out that
Also, just to point out that property damage and violence are not the same thing. Violence is when the Met throw the disabled out of their wheelchairs or attack and kill an unarmed newspaper vendor. That's violence. Property damage--which we can debate as a tactic--is not the same thing and to use such terminology only serves to legitimise the ruling class narrative being promoted by the media.
All that said, I agree with the article, what's needed most is mass, industrial action backed by UKUnCut type occupations and civil disobedience. But sorting that out is best done together, in solidarity, and not by letting the media try to turn us--protestors, trade unionists, anarchists, and UnCutters--against each other.
Why not have this debate -
I have to agree. Non-violent
I have to agree. Non-violent direct action of this kind, makes people (the public, government, the businesses hit) stop and take note far more than A-B marching. It hits them where it hurts (shutting down their businesses costs them money, and the customers inside can't help but notice too far more than A-B marching, it can highlight specific targets for specific crimes and ideals (setting up forests and libraries in banks in favour of those specific causes, against those we believe to be culpable, for example), and unlike violent protest (which, the large proportion of society believe to include property damage), it does not alienate members of the public and allow for this divide-and-rule, good and bad protest dynamic. In fact you often garner media an public support, as did UK Uncut prior to Saturday. As this article says, better not to give the right wing anymore ammo. though that depends on you ultimate motives - bring down the state with popular support, or bring down the state despite. hard to see how you'll do the latter.
Though what exactly are anarcho-syndicalists, and what do they want? Does it mean, a someone has said to me, that you "picked the wrong protest as they [anarcho-syndicalists] believe in enormous cuts, and the government being usurped by workers' councils". Do you believe in no state or a workers collective of minimal sorts (I don't believe you are state socialists), in which case do you want taxes and welfare provision, because that requires administration and established structures and revenue collection, and enforcement etc etc... In which case, were you indeed perhaps on "the wrong protest"? and hijacking a cause that was not yours? I know the march was "for the alternative" - and in that, incredibly vague, but is your agenda not merely anti-cuts, but anti-state as a whole, and therefore perversely your pro-cuts. Far more cuts? In which case I doubt you care of the case for anti-alienating tactics, as your agenda is not congenial to the masses; it will never garner popular support in media, business, or government, even if it does in public. Hence your choice of tactics? You don't need to compromise between impact and empathy...
I'm thinking aloud here, and I know I'm displaying huge ignorance at your cause, but I'd love to be put right, and to hear it from the horses mouth (as it were). What exactly are anarcho-syndicalists - or your particular group of anarcho-syndicalists - for? What's your alternative?
Bean, these are all good
Bean, these are all good questions! We're certainly not in favour of 'enormous cuts' - that would be acomplete misunderstanding of the state as well as how we see the role of the state. It's true that the state does lots and lots of things that are very important - welfare, the NHS, maintaining and building infrastructure, education etc. However, these are basically concessions that the ruling class have had to make because ordinary people fought for them. That is also the reason why we fight the cuts: the cuts are nothing else than the bosses attacking the working class via the government - they want to get rid of all the things that we have achieved in many decades of struggle, and if we lose this fight, we will live in pretty dire conditions.
However anarcho-syndicalists are libertarian communists, and we know that for as long as capitalism exists, bosses will attack us. We don't want to be locked into struggle forever and for that reason we want to do away with capitalism, to replace it with a classless and stateless society, democratically run through a system of free councils - libertarian communism. That's our alternative.
This was a really crappy
Breaking windows of a bank is
Breaking windows of a bank is not a productive way of direct action. That’s simply because it’s a billion dollar industry. HSBC is busy worrying about its billion dollar global assets; it doesn’t care about windows, only the media does and that’s the point, so ethical concerns about the use of “violence” can be put aside here.
If we build an animosity between us because of this, we’re only playing to the pocket of the government. I was at HSBC and at the Ritz when the “violence” started, and saw no SolFed members taking part, so the blame game is useless. The question is where we go from here. I agree that Saturday’s black bloc was fundamentally counterproductive. But we should not let the media to blow this out of proportions by joining in their “good” and “bad” protestor divide. What they want is to demonize the radical workers movement as a whole, and we should not give into this by isolating organizations, just because of acts by few unidentified individuals.
"This was a really crappy
(UK Uncut person
Good point about the trouble
"the violent way you acted...
This open letter is fairly
The very tactic of a black bloc needs to be up for discussion, not just property destruction. Dressing up in all black frankly does far more harm than good - it's inherently alienating to the vast majority of people. Sure, they're irrational, sure, they shouldn't think the way they do, but it's just unambiguously what happens when you do it.
As Malcolm X said, a tactical approach is designed bring about victory. If the idea that the Black Bloc is a 'tactic' and not just some image conscious consumer-driven expression of the punk rock subculture is to have any weight, then it needs to be helping us win. We can't keep ignoring its failures.
I have my suspicions that most practical justifications for the black block are backwards rationalisations. In reality this is a romanticisation of the image of a radical. There are plenty of ways of covering your face, and most of them look less intimidating than 1000 people wearing all black with hoods over their face.
I have no problem with property destruction or even political violence, but only when it works, not when it sets us back. I think the student protests were an excellent example of where smashing up Millbank and rioting in Westminster made us more effective than we would otherwise have been had we just walked from A to B.
But Saturday's property destruction did not further anyone's cause but that of the tabloid media, and frankly went quite a long way to doing a significant amount of long term damage to a carefully constructed campaign by UK Uncut. Just watch the BBC coverage of reporters talking about hundreds of arrests at UK Uncut over scenes of black clad anarchists smashing up the Ritz. http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/444-police-stand-by-as-colleagues-in-pla... You might see why some people could get the wrong idea. Yes, it's bollocks reporting and the BBC needs to fuck off. But it's what we're up against, and if we're serious about winning, we have to adapt.
Political violence - sure, why not. Sometimes, maybe even a lot of the time, there's a place for it. Black bloc tactics? Those will almost always be divisive and push people away rather than do anything to raise class consciousness. I think we need to seriously consider dropping them.
Agreed, but I disagree that
We have a fairly clear idea
We have a fairly clear idea of what we (Solidarity Federation) want - have a read of our magazine, Direct Action, and our pamphlets, all on our website. The anti-cuts 'movement' as a whole unsurprisingly had a load of different people and groups with different ideas of what they want.
I agree we can use the media to some extent, but ultimately if we want to actually change things in a serious way we're going to have to majorly disrupt the economy and there is no way that they'd be sympathetic to that. If we are effective, the media will oppose us whether we use 'violence' or not.
What are we getting if we win? We are stopping a massive attack on our class, an attack which would, and already is, result in massive amounts of misery and pain for many. We would also increase our confidence to fight back successfully, and put fear into the ruling class of ever trying it on again. But for us, the Solidarity Federation, the ultimate victory is not just in beating austerity but in destroying class society, but yeah as I said, have a read of our stuff to find out our 'main objective'.
I completely agree with
whats with all this stupid
"many of us would favour mass
Brilliantly written and much
Perfectly reasonable
An admirable reply from
Just to point out that SolFed
Just to point out that SolFed didn't endorse or encourage that blac bloc--and that SF are one of the most vocal critics of the 'activist' elements of anarchism that fetisize blac blocs. One of our London locals organized a 'radical worker bloc'. The blac blockers then came to us.
If folks have a look at our website, it's far more about getting organized at work (http://solfed.org.uk/?q=organiser-training ) and in our communities than smashing things up.
Just want to say how
Just want to say how important this comment is. Lots of SolFed members don't even think the black bloc tactics on Saturday were all that ideal and many stayed on the main march, it's just we don't want to fall into the trap of seeing things in terms of good/bad protester and 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' protest. If we allow ourselves to accept that distinction then quickly all effective protest will be illegitimate - anything that threatens the economy, and so has the power to effect social change, will be condemned by the media and deemed illegitimate by even the most liberal politicians and the like.
In some comment above, someone says they can't remember the last 'anarchist action' that wasn't anarchists jumping on someone else's protest. Without going into the fact that it's hardly jumping on someone else's protest when we're workers and others against the cuts, many of us are union members, etc. this is disingenuous. Most of SolFed's activity is aimed at organising ourselves as workers, which is hardly jumping on someone else's show. Protests are only a tiny, relatively unimportant (in my personal opinion anyway) part of our activity.
I will add my agreement to
I will add my agreement to that as one who agreed to the letter before it was posted. I walked in London on Saturday in plain clothes carrying the red and black flag. For a time I walked alongside the black block but remained with the march to Hyde Park, chatting to people as I went along.
I think it is a mistake to say that anarchists involving themselves in UK Uncut actions are jumping on the back of other people's actions: as far as I'm concerned it's a show of solidarity with people in their struggles just like many others. Whilst I'm there, I make my own points too: I see no problem or contradiction in this.
I certainly didn't mean
To clarify; Solidarity
To clarify; Solidarity Federation did not organise the black bloc stuff, and has not even said we think it's a good idea. Some do some don't. All this letter is doing is saying we shouldn't fall into the trap of accepting the dominant discourse, which makes a big good/bad protester and legitimate/illegitimate protest distinction. So accusing us of not planning it better doesn't really make sense...
Except some individual SolFed
Solidarity Federation – A
This is a really welcome
Economic Disruption to
http:/ /www. fmotl.com
http:/ /www. fmotl.com /forum/ http:/ /www. lawfulrebellion. org/ there is no change in political change. The puppet strings are firmly held...
please don't use this
please don't use this space for political spamming - we want to have a discussion within the anti-cuts movement on tactics, and we will moderate posts if necessary.
Though I personally don't see
I was with ukuncut on
I was with ukuncut on saturday, and firstly solidarity to all who turned out from accross the spectrum.
I won't condemn vandalism or those who hold the opinion that it is legitimate protest, compared to what is happening to us it most definately is. I also think self defence is justified when dealing with a brutal police force.
I do however agree with what was said earlier, in this media climate I think it isn't effective, perhaps counter productive. We will always be demonised for it and powers used against us will become more repressive. The resistance would be much more effective if all people willing to engage in direct action followed the same tactics. We are stronger as one. As the majority will never engage in vandalism or violence (including myself), it would be far better for the action to be completely non-violent. Let's be clever. Let's be creative. Let's give the police and the media no reason to attack us - although I'm sure they'll try. Let's make sure we film and document our actions and make sure we get the whole country listening.
that's clearly undermining,
Again, you seem to be mistaking the black bloc as an organisation - it's not, it's a tactic. A more accurate way of looking at it is that of maybe 1,500 people on the bloc, one person clearly decided to show that they supported, as an anarchist, the occupation - while 1,499 people didn't.
Now you can complain that this one person was mistaken in doing so (I strongly doubt they intended to undermine anything), but that's not the same thing as an organisation deliberately refusing to show solidarity or undermining UK Uncut.
I get what the Bloc is.
"Again" was a reference to
"Again" was a reference to other similar posts rather than just yours, and if you understand it, why make the comment as though it represented more than one person's actions?
Anyway on the actual complaint, personally I don't think one person flying a flag is going to do UK Uncut all that much harm as long as that person wasn't acting in a way which contradicts its As&Ps (eg. getting violent in a situation where there is an overriding ethos of non-violence) in which case you'd be well within your rights to eject them from your ranks.
Getting into the territory of "they looked too scary to hang out with us" though is a long, dark road to start down. All you need to be doing is emphasising what you are, there's no need to condemn people who believe in the same things and have the same problems but move in different circles - that's the essence of solidarity.
Hi Petra, I understand that
I know the Solidarity
This is one of the issues
This is one of the issues that many SolFed members (myself included) have with the Black Bloc tactic - that it doesn't build up a grass-roots resistance. We're very keen to try and build links with other workers especially in ununionised sectors such as retail. Brighton SolFed for example have recently been doing workplace rights drives in local shops, handing out workplace rights leaflets and asking them about their working conditions.
It's something that I think UKUncut could do more with themselves - getting workers in these various companies on-side would be a big step towards escalating the campaign against their owners/ A one day blockade does a lot of economic. Action by workers themselves, such as a week-long go slow backed up by supporters would do even more.
maybe time to start giving