Reinventing Dissent

[The Feral Underclass]

This was written by some activists [anarchists] who attended the Gleneagles Dissent. It’s probably the best, and only, full critique of what happened there. It's quite long, but definitely worth the read if you want to understand what happened.

Reinventing Dissent: The Unabridged Story of Resistance against the G8 Summit in Scotland, 2005 (http://scotland.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2109/index.php)
By Alex Trocchi, Giles Redwolf, and Petrus Alamire

This is probably my favourite excerpt from it:


To the shock of the police, the Bloc reacted with a full frontal charge on the police lines. Ya Basta!-style armoured members took the initial charge - and then, in a very non-pacifist move, turned on the police and attacked them from behind! The front line of the Bloc was armed with the infamous big sticks, and managed to beat the police at their own game by giving them a shocking beatdown, while rocks were thrown at the police from behind. Overwhelmed by the ferocity of the Bloc, the police line collapsed and the impossible was accomplished: The Black Bloc and others involved in the mass walk-out victoriously took the M9, shutting down traffic going to Gleneagles.

[Severian]

More excerpts:

The attacks of the fundamentalist Islamic bombers in London the same week look cowardly in comparison.

D'oh! They blew themselves up. Their courage and commitment was the one thing that was not wrong with them.

The London bombers were serious people.


The main problem is that there was actually no clearly defined or unified agreement on anything at all, except a hatred of capitalism and hierarchy combined with a love of humanity and the planet.

And on that, it's interesting to note that in this whole long article there is no explanation of what this action was for.

Of course, in action one wants to bring together people who don't agree on everything.....but it shouldn't be so hard to find agreement on something. At least one positive thing. Some kinda demand on the ruling class, possibly. That too much to ask?

But heck, more and more individual leftists don't seem to know what they're for anymore...and are defining their politics solely by what they're against, often the U.S. or merely the Bush regime. So in a way, that is the point of agreement, the complete absence of positive program.

The only mention of any concrete demands is:

At the same time as Dissent!, two years before the G8, large NGOs such as Oxfam launched a massive media campaign and strategic alliance to "Make Poverty History," a campaign centred around asking the G8 to cancel third-world debt, enforce "trade justice," increase aid to developing countries, and in a very radical gesture, not let privatisation be the condition for any aid or debt relief. While this was a fairly radical agenda, in practice the campaign consisted of wearing white wristbands manufactured in a Chinese sweatshop and pinning all hope upon the G8.

Radical agenda? In some sense, maybe. More precisely, Make Poverty History had a British nationalist, "white man's burden" agenda of humanitarian imperialism. Which explains the "the endless heaping of praise upon Blair and his chief economic wizard Gordon Brown", as the article accurately describes it, as well as Brown's (and Blair's?) endorsement of Making Poverty History. They shared the goal of burnishing British imperialism's image as the savior of the world's poor, and good cop to Washington's bad cop.

So it's interesting the author has no criticism of this agenda, even praises it as "fairly radical", and only disagress on means. (wristbands vs big sticks).


The politics of Live8 were murky and unclear at best

Pot, meet kettle.

[The Feral Underclass]

I can't abide your sarcasm. It's completely unnecessary.


Originally posted by Severian+Sep 24 2005, 12:36 PM--> (Severian @ Sep 24 2005, 12:36 PM) More excerpts:

The attacks of the fundamentalist Islamic bombers in London the same week look cowardly in comparison.

D'oh! They blew themselves up. Their courage and commitment was the one thing that was not wrong with them. [/b]
First of all, they are fundamentalist Muslims. They blew themselves up because they believed they were going to heaven, no doubt to pleasure in the 70 virgins.

Secondly, there is nothing courageous about blowing yourself up and killing scores of working class people.


The London bombers were serious people.

And your implying that the activists in Scotland weren't?



The main problem is that there was actually no clearly defined or unified agreement on anything at all, except a hatred of capitalism and hierarchy combined with a love of humanity and the planet.

And on that, it's interesting to note that in this whole long article there is no explanation of what this action was for.

That's because you have had nothing to do with the process or, probably, not even paid attention to any of the politics.

What was it for? To build resistance to the G8


Of course, in action one wants to bring together people who don't agree on everything.....but it shouldn't be so hard to find agreement on something. At least one positive thing. Some kinda demand on the ruling class, possibly. That too much to ask?

We don't want to demand anything from the ruling class. We don't want their hand outs or sympathy.

We want to destroy their control and smash the economic system that keeps them in their positions of power.

We attempted to mobilise a mass of people who demonstrated our hostility towards an institution that symbolises their hegemony. We achieved that goal.


But heck, more and more individual leftists don't seem to know what they're for anymore...and are defining their politics solely by what they're against, often the U.S. or merely the Bush regime. So in a way, that is the point of agreement, the complete absence of positive program.

I agree, there are allot of people within the anarchist milieu who don't want to define themselves. I whole heartedly disagree. But the notion that we define ourselves solely on what we oppose is nonsense.

Please admit that you have no experience within the anarchist movement. Once you have done that, you can stop talking as if you have this insight into what we do. The G8 was an example of opposition, it is not indicative of the things we do as a movement.

Further, what about the Stirling camp?


Article
At the same time as Dissent!, two years before the G8, large NGOs such as Oxfam launched a massive media campaign and strategic alliance to "Make Poverty History," a campaign centred around asking the G8 to cancel third-world debt, enforce "trade justice," increase aid to developing countries, and in a very radical gesture, not let privatisation be the condition for any aid or debt relief. While this was a fairly radical agenda, in practice the campaign consisted of wearing white wristbands manufactured in a Chinese sweatshop and pinning all hope upon the G8.

I like the way you're reading the article, looking for demands. That wasn't a demand. It was a criticism.

If Dissent was demanding anything it was the destruction of capitalism.


Radical agenda?

Fairly radical. In terms of the status quo, it is.



The politics of Live8 were murky and unclear at best

Pot, meet kettle.

Our intentions were evident. If you came to the Stirling camp, you would have seen precisely what our ideal for a future society was. We organised ourselves based on our principles, and for that week we demonstrated to anyone outside that we offered an alternative.

We didn't have pamphlets and magazines, we didn't sell people newspapers and tirade them in the streets. We actually did it. We created a practical example for what we were about. So this accusation is completely unfounded and just proves, once again, that you your attempt to critique dissent on a theoretical level is myopic at best.