Climate Camp is not yet a "middle class liberal disaster"

[bellyscratch]

Just read this article, which I thought was interesting...


A response to criticism that the Camp for Climate Action has become a "middle class liberal media disaster"

I have just got back home from 4 days at the Blackheath camp, and have read the ongoing critisms of the camp with great interest - see in particular http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/08/437091.html, the comments on which prompted this article, which i felt warranted a post of its own.

i, along with others, am embarrassed to be associated with the stunt-lobbying-at-it's-worst, lame-shit-that-doesn't-really-engage-anyone-or-confront-anything that some elements - often those who speak and act "on behalf of climate camp" - for example the 'Rambling Raffle of Resistance".

And i went to this year's camp with a degree of reluctance and an expectation that it had indeed been 100% taken over by posh middleclass student types whose "rebellion" is a reaction to being told by mummy to tidy their rooms - because that is overwhelmingly the impression an observer might get from the CCA website, much of the media coverage, and the CCA media strategy which seems to be to play on the good (MC, peaceful) protestor / bad (WC, violent) protestor and persuade the public that the CCA falls into the former category.

I went to the camp to find out if this was true, and i am very pleased to report that this is not the impression that i had.

Don't get me wrong, the middle class student element does form a disproportionate amount of the numbers at the camp, and is probably the most visible (more visible than the actual numbers) due to their dominating nature / eloquence and confidence in speaking in front of large groups. But that is certainly NOT THE ALL OF IT, and i suggest that any activists writing off the camp as an afluentstudent-liberal-lovein should GO and find out for themselves that there is so much more to it than that.

For example, on the Saturday afternoon there was an extremely well attended (250+ people) discussion / workshop on "green authoritarianism" and anarchy, led by (what seemed to me) the fairly disillusioned Sh!ft magazine collective. The discussion focused on whether the camp was indeed tending to reformism and losing the revolutionary anarchist politics of its originators.

Granted, once the discussion was open to the floor, there were many ('bout 50% of the total) comments from people coming from a liberal perspective, who literally had no idea what could possibly be wrong with using lobbying for political change as a tactic; the example posed by the sh!ft 'panel' was whether the CCA should do as Plane Stupid do and stunt-lobby for the implementation of policies such as higher taxes on air travel, and there were many baffled-looking expressions in the crowd on the faces of those who had never considered that this might be a self-defeating tactic for a movement that aims to destroy capitalism, hierarchy and the state.

Simultaneously, the other half of the comments were from those of a more anarchist background, who found it amazing that anyone at the camp might be unaware of the contradiction of a radical anti-state movement lobbying for the state to implement change.

And the conclusion of the discussion? One of the 'panel' tried to summarise the situation by saying something along the lines of "it seems like the CCA is dominate by liberals who might as well join the Green Party, or better the Labour Party as they will have more influence ont he policies you want, or even the Conservatives since they're going to be in power next year".

And, crucially, he was met with a barrage of shouts of "NO!" from about half of those in the room - those who do much of the work in putting on the camp who do hold those revolutionary anarchist values at the core of what we do. And who understand that most people in this country almost certainly do not hold those values, and this movement is going to have to try and spread them; and this means that people - whether they are liberals, conservatives or whatever - are going to come to what we do, often out of curiosity as much as anything else, and we CAN'T tell them to fuck off for being woolly liberals, any more then put them up against a wall and shoot 'em, but must be ready to engage and debate and convince and build both the movement's numbers and also the strength of its ideological foundations (which surely everyone will agree, debating with someone you disagree with does very effectively).

And taking the workshop as an example - i am sure that a good proportion of the 'liberals' in that discussion learnt a new perspective, came into contact with ideas they hadn't considered much before, and crucially wanted to explore those ideas more, born out by the small proportion of them bought a copy of sh!ft.

There aren't many forums where so many people who had had such little exposure to revolutionary anarchist ideas spent 2 hours engaging in debate about them (when does THAT happen at, say, the London anarchist bookfair?) and i felt it was fucking brilliant.

The Camp for Climate Action this year was more accessible than any previous camp for newcomers. While this remains the case, it being co-opted by a liberal agenda is of course a risk. but i don't think this has happened yet - apart from maybe the jollyhockeysticks-stuntlobbying brigade and the CCA media team which seems to be petrified of mentioning anti-capitalism and anti-statism - which is why it seems that those who DON'T GO to the CCA are under the impression that it has been co-opted (cos they just get their impression from MSM, and unfortunately the postings on Indymedia in the name of the 'Camp' which seem to be far more dominated by the jollyhockeysticks that by a broader representation of those who are there and do much of the work).

When the cops asked to be allowed to patrol the site, twice, there were liberal voices arguing that we should capitulate to these requests (based on observations of the Yorkshire neighbourhood meeting on the issue) -Yet the overwhelming weight of voices cried "no fucking way" and as a consequence (as of Monday morning) the coppers never came on site (in uniform, anyway). Is anyone suggesting that we have a liberal witch-hunt, and prevent those who hold those views from speaking, or from entering the camp? At the neighbourhood meeting those voices were convincingly out-argued. And that does unfortunately mean that there is a risk that the time will come when the liberal voices win the argument, and the Camp for Climate Action becomes a Friends of the Earth liberal climate love-in - which is all the more reason why those of us who hold those core values of the camp dear MUST BE THERE, must make the case, must defend our movement.

Those who pronounce the liberal co-option of the Camp are speaking too soon; it is a risk, but it hasn't happened yet. The action to take is not to just moan about it on Indymedia but to confront where it has become a problem (eg. the media team) and change it by the only way change to the Camp can be realised - by getting involved and doing something about it.

Otherwise, your absence will lead to co-option and takeover.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/437144.html

[nuisance]

I thought this is a good place to put this.
Anarchist Federation perspective paper:


Climate Camp and Us

A perspective paper produced by members of the Anarchist Federation within climate camp 2009.
Last climate camp an open letter was circulated by radical, anti-capitalist elements raising concerns that the movement was coming under greater influence by reformist and state-led approaches to tackling climate change.
A more developed version of this letter is available here (http://climateactioncafe.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/an-open-letter-to-the-climate-camp-neighbourhoods/) and was later published by Shift magazine. The original argued broadly for the adoption of PGA (Peoples Global Action) hallmarks as core principles for the camp in its organisation and objectives.
This year the debate continued as libertarian communist and anarchist communist activists were invited to debate calls for authoritarian solutions to climate change within the movement (for example calls for increased taxation, state surveillance and austerity politics). Speakers addressed a range of areas in which they considered these approaches were gaining prominence. Key points included the over reliance on scientific facts as a justification for environmental action, relegating to secondary concerns over social-justice, an assumption within the movement that the state may become a valid tool in challenging and combating climate change and the general dangers of the state incorporating the green movement and stripping it of its radical tendencies. Overall, there was a desire to strengthen analysis of ecological issues with an understanding of wider economic and political realities. In short, you can not wage war against climate change while ignoring the class war. Class is central to the maintenance of the current inequalities in the economic and political system and in only in challenging this can we hope to bring our movement closer to radical, social transformation. While the ecological crisis is a pressing and potentially catastrophic issue for our class it should also be understood as one in a series of crisis, economic and political, that are result of the contradictory character of the capitalist system.

A lengthy debate followed amongst campers in attendance. The points that were most commonly raised were:


The possibility of the state as a strategic tool for our movement,

The urgency of climate change, and the time scale we have to work with,

Not seeing the contradiction between building bottom-up organisations and calling for top-down solutions,

Discussions on coercion versus lifestyle change and

What "our" (ie. anti-authoritarian) alternatives are.

As a consequence of this debate we felt it was now important to build a better understanding of our relationship to this movement and what, as anarchist communist militants, our future place was in it. It has become increasingly obvious that, despite a commitment to direct action and horizontalism in organisation, anti-statism is by no means a widely held principle inside of this movement. The climate camp is moving further and further away from the radical, anti-capitalist politics that was represented by its precursor organisations, e.g. Earth First!, the 90s road protests, Reclaim the Streets. There is a clear lack of both political analysis and experience throughout the camp. While this movement has equipped itself with the skills (direct action, media etc.) and the knowledge (scientific analysis) to intervene in the climate change debate it has not embraced the political questions that still linger around the future direction of our movement.

There is a real danger that this lack of debate and discussion will serve only to weaken Climate Camp. This is most strongly evidenced in the wholly uncritical way that many Green activists have adopted the strategy and tactics of the traditional Left as ecological campaigning has spread into the workplace. Calls for nationalisation, eco-lobbying and work within the trade union bureaucracies (solutions typically associated with Old Labour and the authoritarian Left) have been widely accepted as legitimate tools in our struggle. The "anti-capitalism" that is common amongst camp participants is one that objects to capitalism in its excesses, i.e. in the destruction of the planet, not in its everyday functioning. With the prospects of a "Green capitalism" on the horizon, this leads us to telling questions over the commitment of these activists in the face of a potentially carbon-free, but nonetheless capitalist, economy. Without an analysis of the problems presented by capitalism and an understanding of the historical successes and failures of the working movement we leave ourselves widely exposed to recuperation by an existing political and social elite (from Right to Left).
We feel the camp is at a cross roads. Much of the radical base (and wider radical anti-capitalist movement) are slipping away from the camp and its ideas are being lost. This is reflected most strongly in the changed dynamics and culture in this years camp. A lack of commitment to mass action and the softly, softly approach of the police has transformed aspects of Climate Camp to more of a festival than a political gathering. this is despite the fact that the images of the G20 and police brutality are still strong amongst many. The debates and discussions that have been prominent in the neighbourhoods are largely concerned with the anti-social behaviour of campers on site, not our ability to forward our movement. There has even been some approval of allowing the police to enter our autonomous space in the spirit of future "good relations". In truth, the only real political work that has come out of this camp is the "eco-lobbying" of the media team, aided by media-friendly direct actions on certain key infrastructure. In the Yorkshire village we celebrated the discussion of carbon trading on newsnight, not the disruptive actions of the activists. These are developments that are occurring external to the camp. We are spectators in our own spectacle as we search desperately through the news sheets of the bourgeois media for approval of our actions.

Whilst it is true that anti-statism is not a stated principle of the camp, we argue that true anti-capitalism cannot be separated from anti-statism. The state is fundamental to the continued functioning of capitalism. As anarchist communists, our preference is to dissociate from the state structures, reject their hierarchy and recognise them as incapable of both preventing climate change and creating a better world. To instead focus on inclusive, participatory solutions that work from the grass roots up throughout educating each other about the alternatives to capitalist society, how we operate and by extension how we see an anarchist-communist society operating. The goal of stopping climate change is important, but it is as equally important as and dependent upon radically changing society. The state has never played a progressive role in society. Its purpose is to secure, maintain and promote the development of capitalism. Where radical movements have arisen (in workers struggles, suffrage movements etc) it has been the role of the state in combating these and repressing them. Where the state can not sustainably maintain its violent oppression, it incorporates demands from the movement into its existing power structures. The best example of this is the trade union movement, once the spearhead of workers rights struggles against the injustices of capitalism, they were considered radical and dangerous. Union activists faced imprisonment, persecution in their local communities and repression in the workplace. But it became apparent to capital and the state that this oppression wasn't sustainable, and that their reactions simply encouraged workers to revolt. The solution was recuperation, to legalise unions, incorporate them into the structures of the workplace and give them a (minor) role to play. This greatly affected the revolutionary potential of unions, and comparing the modern trade union movement to that of the past is a testament to its affect in quelling the call for radical social change. Past radical movements have been recuperated in the same way, and there is a very real danger of the climate camp being turned from a movement for social change into a lobbying tool for state reform.
With regards to the crisis that we face - climate change - estimates for the time we have left vary from 10 years, 100 months, 5 years ahead, or years in the past depending on who you talk to. The one agreement is that time is of the essence. There is a broad assumption amongst our critics that the state is able to act more efficiently than the anarchist "alternative" we are proposing. The simplest argument to raise here is that the state, capitalism and its way of managing society have gotten us thus far. Their way of running the world has landed us in climate chaos, with a minority of the world exploiting the majority of its resources irresponsibly. A more in depth analysis of the problem comes when we disregard who got us here and ask who will get us out. The state's purpose is to secure the status of the capitalist elite. It exists to ensure they are free to exploit the rest of us, live in luxury and do as they please. We have to raise the question of how this institution will act as drastically as is needed in order to combat climate change? Is it able to act against the capitalists who hold its reins?
The origin of climate camp's politics are in radical direct action to inspire and demonstrate how a more ecological society will work. The only way a climate crisis can be averted is to radically change society. Only by a conscious effort of every person to act more responsibly can we change how we operate, how we produce, consume (or more importantly NOT "consume") and live. But we believe the only way to accomplish this is from below, by inspiration, example and education. Not by taxation, involving the state in our lives and encouraging them to monitor our actions. How can we possibly preach the need for responsibility and reduced consumption whilst with its two hands the state continues to feed and protect capitalism's excesses and beat down any alternatives movements? Likewise, it is naive to believe that top-down state control and bottom-up social movements should be working side by side to combat climate change. Suggesting that state control can co-exist with a movement that advocates social change and a radical alteration to our lifestyles is not only counter-productive it is completely irrational. The state doesn't want us to change, it certainly doesn't want us to stop being good happy consumers who perpetually buy new cars, shop at super-markets and keep voting for things to stay the same. If ultimately all we want is better laws and state intervention on climate change then why participate in a movement that openly breaks the law and challenges the power of the state?
There have been some very positive developments within the camp. The involvement of campers in the recent Vestas dispute and the Tower Hamlets strike have displayed a commitment to break out of the Green activist ghetto. Likewise, the importance of workplace organisation as a critical tool in anti-capitalist struggle is gaining greater credibility. This is the direction we need to take our struggle, expand our movement, generalise our demands and take our place amongst a continuing culture of working class resistance. We have no doubt that anarchist communists belong inside of this camp. The positive examples displayed by the organisation of the camp and its decision making structure are important. Climate camp potentially represents a critical weapon in workers struggle, bringing the lessons of collective living and horizontalist organising to a class that is being battered by the economic crisis. The future political direction of the camp is key. We need to expand the debate and seek clarification on the direction of our movement. When political conservatives, corporations, even fascists are "turning green" it is no longer sufficient to simply do "everything we can" to avert the coming crisis. At the end of our speech we posed a question to the Climate Camp and we feel that still, collectively we are far from reaching a definitive answer. Do we want to simply change the way that the current economy is managed or do we want to build a truly radical society? Do we want the bread, or do we want the whole fucking bakery?

http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/state/122-climate-camp-and-us-a-perspective-paper.html

[Oneironaut]

I found both of your articles very interesting! I am glad to see this movement isn't as illusioned as they make themselves look.

[bellyscratch]

Not had a chance to read the article you posted yet Edelweiss, but I'll try get around to it soon.

Here is another article from Cambridge Anarchists


Members of Cambridge Anarchists travelled down to Blackheath, London, for the Camp for Climate Action. The opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not represent the perspective of the whole group.

Some of us were old hands, some of us had never been to Climate Camp before. But we were definately all up for a week of direct action against coppers, bankers and other class enemies! We arrived at the site in rental vans and immediately jumped to work putting up the defensive fence around the peremeter of the camp, putting up the “Tripods”, and mucking in where-ever. In a short time people flooded in and we sat back (well, some of us sat back!) to watch as tents popped up over Blackheath common like mushrooms. We were pleased when our comrades from the Whitechapel Anarchist Group turned up with their banner and sound-system. We had been expecting hordes of caveman Met police but were pleasantly surprised just to be having a beer and meeting other anarchists from around the country.

As we sat around having a bit of a laugh we suddenly noticed that student-hippy looking types were escorting these cops into a tent by the WAG sound-system. Our feelings were the same — WHAT THE FUCK??! We surrounded the tent and told the scum inside exactly what we thought of their kind. Afterwards the media and liberals referred to “drunken, aggressive anarchists” but our reaction was more than political it was a personal reaction. Like many working-class people our relations to the police have never been good. How many of our mates, how many of us, have been banged up, harrassed, beaten up and fucked around by the Old Bill? Had these organisers, these “Police Liaisons”, forgot Ian Tomlinson so quickly? The cops beat a hasty retreat out of camp and the wankers who had let them in were left with some hard questioning. This incident was dealt with by members of Whitechapel Anarchist Group in the interview they gave on Dissident Island Radio, we just want to say we took part in this action, fucking hate all coppers and their apologists and will NEVER compromise in our attitude that there can be no peace between us and the police. (WAG Radio interview: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://whitechapelanarchistgroup.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/wag-climate-camp-debate-police-violence-class/ )

One thing that also got us angry was the media circus that decended on Climate Camp. On the first couple days as we worked putting up tents and pavilions we had to constantly tell reporters to Fuck Off as they tried to snap a picture of us swinging a sledgehammer or tightening a guy-rope! We have come to feel that there are strong organising elements of Climate Camp that are really obsessed with coverage by the mainstream media and “appearing respectable”. We felt the problem with the idea that playing to the mainstream media, and especially cultivating the liberal media (e.g. the Guardian), is that at most it just reaches out to middle-class liberals. If people think that Climate Camp is for respectable, Guardian reading types a lot will be put off. Being liberal peaceniks playing to the system in a time when working-class people are angry and disillusioned is shooting yourself in the foot. At various meetings like “Making our Workplaces Red, Black & Green” and “Green Authoritarianism” this could be seen, with people from the Left and the liberal wing of the Green movement taking statist positions denying agency to working-class people. Pandering to the status quo strengthens the status quo.

On Friday the 28th Cambridge Anarchists joined the march into the heart of Canary Wharf from Climate Camp. After giving police and private security a good run for their money, we stood outside Barclays bank shouting up to the bankers to top themselves! Then we took a tour of the yuppy wine bars and gastro-pubs, shouting the old slogan “Behold Your Future Executioners!” A typical coked-up bankster stumbled drunkenly in our path and we got him to prance in front of the cameras, confident that he’d wake up the next day with a massive hang-over and (hopefully) no more job. After marching through the sacred monuments of capitalism we left laughing, leaving a gaggle of striken looking toffs huddled in cafes. On the train back we started chatting with a guy sitting next to us (not from the protest, just taking the train!) who happened to be from St. Neots – In his opinion, as an unemployed construction worker, people were fucking angry and the time for polite protest was past and it was the time for smashing windows. A real sampling of genuine public opinion!

All and all, we have been enjoying the freedom of the autonomous camp but have serious problems with strong elements of the Climate Camp, liberal authoritarians. These people wish to use the state (the same state that battered them at Kingsnorth and at the G20!) to “save the world” from climate change. This is very dangerous for personal freedom. This enthusiasism for curbing working people’s access to resources and freedom of thought and action could lead to a stronger, more authoritarian capitalist system. The current system is in crisis and there is a strong tendency in the Green movement to simply offer a “Green New Deal” of increased state power. Nationalisation, taxation, austerity, surveillance and social control are offered as solutions to the ecological crisis rather than working-class self activity for a democratic, equal society. This may seem “sensible” but is just offering more power to a small minority above society — the same bastards who got us into this mess in the first place! As anarchists have been pointing out at the Climate Camp, the authoritarian solutions offered by influential figures in the Green movement (in Friends of the Earth, GreenPeace, Green Party, etc.) are not real solutions. Fear of impending ecological doom may lead us into a highly authoritarian society. Its not even as if relying on the state is realistic — its simply niave. In the ecological crisis the class war well and truly becomes a matter of “Us or Them” — the ruling class will NEVER voluntarily give up their privilege or power. The only options in front of us are revolution and working-class self-empowerment or a fascistic-fuedal system as the ruling class hordes the remaining resources and tries to escape the holocaust of climate chaos.

We cannot make up our minds if anarchists should stay within Climate Camp and argue for the politics of freedom, self-empowerment and social revolution or just leave. After all the people we need to be talking to are Sun readers, not Guardian readers, and ultimately Climate Camp may just be a giant lobbying spectacle. What we do know is we definitely want to focus on organising in our workplaces and communities. We need a anarchist movement that is relevant to the everyday lives of working-class people.

Despite our misgivings we hope to enjoy an action-packed last few days of Climate Camp!
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/437320.html

[nuisance]

Not had a chance to read the article you posted yet Edelweiss, but I'll try get around to it soon.

Here is another article from Cambridge Anarchists


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/437320.html
;)
Blog here also cambridgeanarchists.wordpress.com



Here's the Whitechapel Anarchists (WAG) account of Climate Camp-




Revolting Peasants (http://whitechapelanarchistgroup.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/revolting-peasants/)


http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo298/whitechapelanarchists/img_2274small-medium.jpg
The day started off with us trudging down to our old haunt Bank for 12 Noon prompt, despite the usual stereotypes of Anarchist time keeping we were there bang on time, but then the waiting began. Two hours in total. The Police presence was tiny, though they did enjoy ducking behind pillars and spying on us when we met up with some more famous anarchists, though being a WAG means the police are always interested in your activities anyway. We spotted the FIT Copper from television programme Bargain Hunt who took the wisecracks on the chin to be fair. He never should have bought those stones though!
Around 1pm we decided to tie up our banner, only to be told by climate camp prefects that “This is an autonomous zone. Could we not put it up!” at which point we decided to act autonomously and put it up much to the amusement of the journalists (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6811505.ece). We then went to the pub. Or as one Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6811518.ece) journalist described it: “Demonstrating surprisingly efficient organisation, the Whitechapel Anarchists have taken a collective decision to sit out the bingo and go to the pub!” Despite winding up the “Tranquility Team” about the fact we had come straight from the Westham / Millwall game and trying to spread a rumour that it was Hackney Wick there really was nothing else going on. So the pub it was.
A few pints later around 2pm and we are on our way to Cutty Sark Greenwich on the DLR line to Blackheath. The chosen spot for the Climate Camp. And what a historic place – Wat Tyler and The Peasants Revolt! Will the thronging masses be ready to smash the religious and state institutions like their forefathers/mothers did..? Not entirely. The walk up to Blackheath was much amusement for us WAGs as people dared not stray from the pavement and obiedently marched two by two. When we pointed out that maybe we should take the streets and walk in the road we were told “No” by one eager eco-warrior. I mean you wouldn’t want to stop the traffic now would you? Anyways we broke from the crowd and walked in the road. And then the crowd followed. For some this was probably the most revolutionary act they have ever committed.
Arriving on site our top priority was securing the supply lines as a crack team ventured into the leafy village of Blackheath in search of an off license. Back on the camp we set up a large piece of fencing (which we “found”) attaching our WAG Banner and a number of Red/Black Flags, the cherry on top being a booming sound system. For the next few hours all was jovial, with much alcohol consumed, a football kick about and crap dancing amongst an assortment of WAGs, punks, old RTS, Cambridge Anarchists (http://cambridgeanarchists.wordpress.com/) and other nefarious characters who congregated around us.
The first bit of trouble came from a man who was obviously employed by the Camp to help set up tents, the kind of prole who during the Peasants Revolt would have defended Lord and Lady Rupert’s Estate against members of his own family, who with no warning came shouting at us to turn the sound system off. But his major mistake happened when he threatened to “Get my Sledge Hammer and smash it up!” Out of everyone on the camp to try and bully and intimidate he sure picked the wrong crowd. Let’s just say it didn’t take us very long to convince him otherwise.
Then the shit hit the proverbial wind turbine. Superintendent Julie Pendry and some other lackey Copper (Possibly Ian Thomas) were wandering around undisturbed. They were taken into a tent for a cup of tea and a chat with members of the Officer Class while Climate Camp prefects defended the door, initially to keep out press, as they blocked up the entrance so no one could see or hear what was going on. Climate Camp made two tactical errors here. Firstly allowing the Pigs onto the site (Which was fenced off by this point with only one main entrance). And secondly by allowing them asylum in a tent right next to our mob. Oh dear.
And so it began. Heckling. Shouting. And a few choruses of Harry Roberts. People flocked from all corners of the camp to get involved. But the mood was split. Conflict between those opposed to the police presence and those willing to protect and tolerate (And in some cases welcome) the old bill. Climate Camp soft cops warned us that “It’s not best to act like this with media around” which just goes to show that some involved in the Camp have so much faith in the corporate media, police and state that their hopes for real radical environmental change are merely liberal posturing at best. At this point a spray can was used to much artistic effect as “ACAB” was decorated on the tent, though the artist was stopped before he could finish “KILL POLICE”. The sound system was then pushed up against the tent so that the inside occupants could listen to the brilliant Dead Prez rap about the joy of politically motivated drive by shootings.
Finally the two little piggies were rushed out, protected by Camp prefects, but given a run for their money by us lot. Barrages of “SCUM”, “MURDERERS”, “BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS” and “WE HAVEN’T FORGOTTEN ABOUT IAN TOMLINSON” were hurled at them until they managed to escape out the main gates. With back up now assembled. FIT Watch’s finest did a brilliant job in undermiming their presence and they all finally left as the angry abuse continued letting them know that they were not welcome.
Heated discussions then abounded. We should say that people shouting at the police were not just our group but was a mixed mob of anarchists and sound newly found comrades from the camp who got involved. It was made clear to Climate Camp prefects and others protesting against our actions that we have a right to stand up and be heard when the police, who are oppressive violent functionaries of the State and ruling class, enter a space that is supposed to be liberated and collectively organised for radical purposes of real change from the old order. Obvious to many was the fact that decisions had been made and people were kept in the dark which exposes the hierachical nature behind the non-hierachical rhetoric.
Many at Climate Camp experienced the Polices full force on April 1st, for some of us we experience this on a day to day, but despite some class divides common ground was found and can be built on. For radical change to make a real impact on our lives and environment we must be empowered as individuals, as a combative force willing to level the class system, opposed to all forms of oppression inflicted upon us from the State. For the freedom of all people. For the freedom of the planet and all her creatures. The police can not be reformed. They protect private property and the ruling class. They always have and they always will. They are the enemy.
For the author of this blog it was the DLR back to Shadwell but some WAGs are camping on site. A text message was received: “Loads of support for the action against the cops tonight, be good if WAG came back, judging by the mood, definitely welcome.”
We will be back on Friday discussing live from the camp on Dissident Island Radio (http://www.dissidentisland.org/) at 7pm exactly what went on and some of the controversies around it possibly dispelling rumours.
On a closing note all those involved in the camp have come together out of a respect for each other, the general atmosphere on site was friendly, positive, constructive and highly enjoyable. This can only remain if the police keep well away as expressed in the open letter to the MET (http://climatecamp.org.uk/blog/2009/08/20/open-letter-to-the-met).



http://whitechapelanarchistgroup.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/revolting-peasants/



Here's also a radio interview with WAG on Climate Camp, particulary the incident involving the police:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9RFoqQR2QA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeTwUfIvooQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL12Y2XFWj4&feature=player_embedded


http://whitechapelanarchistgroup.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/wag-climate-camp-debate-police-violence-class/

[Vanguard1917]

Is there anything progressive about the demands of Climate Camp? Or is it wholly reactionary to oppose things like... working class people being able to go on holidays abroad?

[bellyscratch]

Is there anything progressive about the demands of Climate Camp? Or is it wholly reactionary to oppose things like... working class people being able to go on holidays abroad?

You're one to ask about progression, when you're living in the past :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

You're one to ask about progression, when you're living in the past :rolleyes:

Well, thanks for answering the question.

[bellyscratch]

Well, thanks for answering the question.

You're welcome ;)

Seriously though. There are massive implications from environmental destruction that affect the poorest people in the world. You don't even have to look at rising sea levels from far away lands, which are causing people to be environmental refugees for this.

In the Scottish Climate Camp, one of the most important things that came out of it was a report, jointly done by people from the camp and local people. This report looked into the health affects of open cast coal mining (which was the main thing we were protesting against, as we were occupying a proposed site for an open cast coal mine), on the local population. This is a site that is building upon this http://coalhealthstudy.org/

[Vanguard1917]

You're welcome ;)

Seriously though. There are massive implications from environmental destruction that affect the poorest people in the world.

Most if not all of which could be solved if the those people had access to the massive, urgent, widespread and rapid economic development that they need. How many of those at Climate Camp would support that? But it's precisely severe economic underdevelopment which is what keeps poor people vulnerable to nature's destructive aspects.

And you still haven't answered my initial question.

[bellyscratch]

Most if not all of which could be solved if the those people had access to the massive, urgent, widespread and rapid economic development that they need. How many of those at Climate Camp would support that? But it's precisely severe economic underdevelopment which is what keeps poor people vulnerable to nature's destructive aspects.

And you still haven't answered my initial question.

Yes they need economic development, but it has to be in a sustainable way, otherwise they're still going to be fucked, just further down the line.

Sorry if scientific research isn't seen as progress.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes they need economic development, but it has to be in a sustainable way, otherwise they're still going to be fucked, just further down the line.

'Sustainable development' being the environmentalist codeword for modest, small-scale and localised development. You tell the developing world that they should not be allowed the massive and large-scale development that they need. What's progressive about that?

And why do you repeatedly refuse to answer the questions that are put to you?

[bellyscratch]

'Sustainable development' being the environmentalist codeword for modest, small-scale and localised development. You tell the developing world that they should not be allowed the massive and large-scale development that they need. What's progressive about that?

I never said anything about small-scale. Sustainability can be achieved on a mass scale. Stop trying to make out that anything that is linked to the environmental movement is not progressive, because you're totally wrong. It has to be a global thing, and everyone needs to learn from each other how to be more sustainable. Certain things do need to be localised, to fit in with the conditions of that particular locale, but thats common sense. Not that you have much of that :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

I never said anything about small-scale. Sustainability can be achieved on a mass scale. Stop trying to make out that anything that is linked to the environmental movement is not progressive, because you're totally wrong. It has to be a global thing, and everyone needs to learn from each other how to be more sustainable.

Yes, i'm very much up-to-date on the eco-lingo. But what does 'sustainability on a mass scale' mean in practice. Things like restricting air travel a mass scale?

[bellyscratch]

Yes, i'm very much up-to-date on the eco-lingo. But what does 'sustainability on a mass scale' mean in practice. Things like restricting air travel a mass scale?

You're putting words in my mouth. I personally wouldn't want to restrict air travel on a mass scale, but build high speed rail lines on a mass scale, so people don't have to fly as much.

[Coggeh]

You're putting words in my mouth. I personally wouldn't want to restrict air travel on a mass scale, but build high speed rail lines on a mass scale, so people don't have to fly as much.
Their talking about building a mass rail link between the US to the UK to France . Regardless of whether your an environmentalist or not its a brilliant idea as it would be a much faster form of travel at a lower cost to the environment .

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Their talking about building a mass rail link between the US to the UK to France . Regardless of whether your an environmentalist or not its a brilliant idea as it would be a much faster form of travel at a lower cost to the environment .

A rail link between the US and the UK? Not in this century, I would think. If we want a less pollutive way of crossing the Atlantic soonish, nuclear-powered passenger ships would be a better bet - they might not be as fast as aircraft, but they would definately be able to carry more passengers in greater comfort than the airborne sardine cans of today. Or we could bring back airships, which have the share the advantage of airplanes in being able to cross land as well.

[thethinkingchimp]

nuclear-powered passenger ships would be a better bet - they might not be as fast as aircraft, but they would definitely be able to carry more passengers in greater comfort than the airborne sardine cans of today

I like this idea, I have always liked the argument for nuclear power. I am aware that with today's technology that reprocessing of radioactive materials can lead to a low amount of radioactive waste. However, it is also my understanding that there will still be waste to some degree, along with a small amount of radioactive mechanical portions of any decommissioned or damaged vessels that will have to be dealt with. No doubt this will spark debate between the US and UK about who takes what portion of the responsibility of this waste, and who will have to develop what number of safe repositories. Here in the US, legislators and scientists argue for years on where to place waste where it will not harm anyone directly, be included in the water table, and will not be disturbed by seismic activity(we have more waste compared to other countries due to older plants without reprocessing capabilities). If sound agreements were made internationally about the responsibility of waste well before physical construction occured; this would be a fantastic development in travel. Really any safe implementation of nuclear power, from my point of view, is a step in the right direction. I think that here in the states the full potential of nuclear power has not be realized, and it is unfortunate.