Another Shade of Green

The other day there was a fight in my home town, not the kind of running brawl up the hill that would stir me from my sleep when I still lived there and would often be over in minutes. And not exactly like the kind of massive scraps that kicked off between the mods and rockers in the fifties. This was another faction altogether and something much nearer to home, in several senses; the anarchists were out in force again. As ever it was a relatively small group in an otherwise peaceful demo but, predictably enough, they were the ones who made the news, the papers here running a story about ambulance workers being showered with bottles, with other stories about the public literally running scared, attacks on property almost too routine to mention, the counter culture press all too euphoric.

Fights with the cops are nothing new and their precedent goes back of course much further than the recent G20, when the police brutality was rightly reciprocated with an outcry from the people and the press. The current state of play has roots in the G8 demos of the nineties, which helped inspire the anti-capitalist demos of J-18 in 1999 and the Maydays of 2000 and later. And it could also be said that the anti-globalisation movement was partly or largely inspired by the anti-road campaigns and Reclaim the Streets free parties that grew up just a few years before.

But something seemed to change in the nineties, like a certain force had been unleashed and ran full tilt unto its logical conclusion. And for many that conclusion was to attack the problem at its root; to take on the City itself, to try and literally smash it. The trouble is that the best conclusions are not always logical ones, that reacting like this, however deserving the target may be, was a kind of glorified stunt, albeit on a massive scale, whatever the intention. The violence that took place on those protests did little more than make it easier for the police to drum up new legislation. And many who had been involved until that point melted away to less confrontational ways of doing things, leaving the field clear for those with fewer scruples, or informed by the conviction that trashing things and fighting the police was nearly always fully justified. While it should be stressed that the vast majority of those who stayed involved remained quite shrewd and continued to act with both the spirit and principles that had mostly always been defining features, there was a sense of the direction being influenced by a very vocal element, that many, myself included, turned away from a difficult debate, let our sense of self determination be subsumed by those with a different agenda, or at least a different sense of means. At any rate, it is interesting to read the interview with one of the editors of Do or Die who states that their more radical perspective within the movement won: “this resulted in lots of people dropping much of the non-violent pacifist ideology, moving more towards an anarchist position and supporting sabotage actions.”

And now we’re at a near brick wall, where the kind of action that ten years ago might have been tolerated is pre-emptively shut down. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, perhaps the police would have always taken this line given the chance, caught on the hop as they were at first by the new tactics of resurgent direct action. But direct action always carried both massive promise and a charge of the unknown, was always undefined, was something to be reckoned with but with no telling where it would end, of where it’s limits lay.

The reason I write this now is that not doing so would be to turn my back on many I still know who are affected, indirectly or otherwise, every time anybody decides to throw a bottle or a brick, every time criminal damage is justified as some first and final port of call. The police have grown too powerful by far, there’s no denying that. But they are in part reacting to a movement in this country that may have partly lost it’s way some years ago and - ever since Gleneagles and especially with the rise of Climate Camps – has been well under way to claiming it back, only to be jeopardised by an old school way of doing things, by that small but sharp insidious minority whose mantra is antagonism.

As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s often a case not of just what we do, but how we choose to go about it, and justifying not only violence but any kind of hate, of passion or conviction taken to extremes does nothing but fuel further the wheels of reciprocal action that every one could do without. The clearance of the Climate Campers from the Square Mile after events outside the Bank of England only goes to show that we are all the poorer from the actions of those who see aggravation as a means of bringing change; police actions become clouded with the excuse that some demonstrators somewhere were violent, that the force had somehow been worked up. While the TSG may have been far more calculating right from the beginning, and while their actions may have been given the green light from high up levels before the G20 protests had even begun, aggravation only plays into their hands, makes it easier for them to act how they see fit.

There’s a balance to be struck of course, there’s the sense that effective actions can often be full on. But it’s worth never letting ourselves forget that those we face are humans just like us, wherever their attitudes or their superiors’ attitudes are, that there’s a fine line between squaring up and intimidation, that we are all to some point or another compromised by the system until the system changes or gives way and that witchhunt-like mentalities can often do more harm than any good.

I say this too because the only way that those involved will succeed in carrying the day is to build bridges, to go forward as a strong and growing movement - if one people is for now too much to ask. Aggression will only turn people away and anyone protesting has to keep in mind that cheek is worth it’s weight in gold but can run the risk of seeming underhand if they choose to act without a sense of their own integrity. As Bob Dylan said; “if you live outside the law you must be honest.” And everybody needs to retain a basic respect for the dignity of those that they may face. They may or may not deserve it but how we choose to act to others determines the degree of our own dignity and whether or not we inspire anyone to follow in our steps.

A mass movement is needed now as never before but it must be one that acts with balance or will do nothing but lock itself into interminable and escalating rounds of confrontation and justify the cranking up still further of repression from the state. Even if the use of force is viewed by some as justifiable in the sense of not giving ground to the police, the reality is that if we choose to play the game like this, the State will always have the upper hand, will always have more force at its disposal, conveniently made legitimate. The only power that therefore has any hope of turning round the day has to therefore be a peaceful one, of the testimony of numbers, of both these things allied to practical action.

Sadly it seems the black block anarchists - whatever colour or name they may go under - will never really get it; the tactic of fighting the police, the conviction that this is both justified and worthwhile has become so entrenched and unassailable in certain quarters that speaking out against it almost seems pointless. For some it's just a natural intransigence, or myopia induced by rage. For others it comes from following unheeding a path that has already been set into play. But there are those I know who are more calculating, even in the depths of nihilism; they have seen a future and it's bleak and they slowly pick their way towards the hastening of bringing down humanity's predominance. And surely things must change but there has to be a way ahead that allows at least the chance of a return of our culture to some kind of balance with the earth, of our economy into something practical and sane.

I should say too that anarchy itself can hold great hope as something to aspire to; it can at least inform how we all act, whether or not we see ourselves as part of a wider society. At its most fundamental level anarchy is about accepting personal responsibilty for what we do. I would assert that following a violent path - through choice and not neccessity - for the sake of a mentality that only further fuels a confrontation that serves no one, carries nothing of the deep responsibility that anarchy ought to be about.

As for the demonstrations, it is both fitting now and necessary to challenge the powers of the police, the Camps turn their attention to the City and the months to come will surely be nothing if not interesting. But people must at every turn be on their guard against following doctrines of conflict that offer neither hope nor any kind of peace. I wouldn’t tolerate a violent man within my family and we should not respect a difference that goes against our most intrinsic values.