G20 protests and the spectacle of violence
Apr 2 2009 08:24
I am very far from the action (in Australia), so I'll have to leave it to others to comment on the impact these protests are having on those people and movements directly involved, but I though I'd share my perceptions on how they are being represented and interpreted here.
My sympathy and solidarity for all those who have been victims of police violence.
The news media here is mostly just presenting the protests and the police response as a spectacular backdrop to their discussions on what political representatives the Australian PM is meeting with. Still, they do have to acknowledge the protests, which somewhat disrupts their main message that our duly appointed political representatives are negotiating a rational response to the crisis. But the dominant message is still that the crisis is like a natural disaster, something unpredictable for the 'experts' (like those meeting at the G20) to manage while the rest of us should suffer through it stoically, while protests are perhaps to be expected but ultimately achieve nothing but noise and violence. At least this is the case here in Australia, where the full impact of the crisis has yet to hit and the mood is one of anxiety and resignation rather than anger.
I'm sure that some will be claiming that the more recent spectacle of violence represents a more 'effective' and militant form of political action than the earlier relatively peaceful march. Perhaps this is true, or at least was true in terms of the political intentions behind the protests. From here it does look like a rather effective form of action - on the part of the police, that is. The clear message is 'step out of line and we will smash you'. Whether that is the most effective message for the capitalist state as a whole to be sending, given the recent shocks to the hegemony of neoliberalism, I'm not sure. Maybe it will help cement the domination of liberal NGOs and official trade unions (etc) over the popular reaction, as more radical approaches become associated with 'pointless violence'. But perhaps instead it will further intensify the expressions of open class antagonism?
I have noticed in some of the discussions (on this board and elsewhere) regarding the G20 protests, that there seems to be a bit of a false opposition being constructed between 'symbolic' or communicative protest and practical action. Perhaps the idea that summit protests are pointless is an overreaction to the earlier over-emphasis on them in the 'alter-globalisation' movement. But surely this is a rather different context, with the recent financial crisis. There may be a real potential for 'symbolic' actions such as the G20 protests to help crystalise a more thorough class response. Hopefully such a movement can develop despite the violence (both symbolic and physical) being meted out by the agents of the state.
Apr 2 2009 20:31
#2
Over here in the States, the first protest was presented in the media as a fun gathering of all sorts of groups that wanted to tell the politicians a certain message. The second protest, or the anti-capitalist one, was presented as being a few rowdy Anarchist who came to attack police, break windows, and create havoc. Almost all the videos that I watched from multiple clips on CNN about the 2nd protest showed some masked guys smashing windows, with someone talking over the video blaming the violence on Anarchists.
Apr 2 2009 21:45
#3
Jerome wrote:
Over here in the States, the first protest was presented in the media as a fun gathering of all sorts of groups that wanted to tell the politicians a certain message. The second protest, or the anti-capitalist one, was presented as being a few rowdy Anarchist who came to attack police, break windows, and create havoc. Almost all the videos that I watched from multiple clips on CNN about the 2nd protest showed some masked guys smashing windows, with someone talking over the video blaming the violence on Anarchists.
I dont think there was a split between the two demos that could define one as "the anti-capitalist one" against the other.
If the media painted the anarchists as being there to fight cops and destroy stuff, well, what else were they fucking there for?
Apr 2 2009 21:56
#4
Quote:
I dont think there was a split between the two demos that could define one as "the anti-capitalist one" against the other. /quote]The first demonstration was presented in American media as a gathering of 150 different groups that all have different messages about different issues to the global leaders. In these 150 groups could have been anti-capitalists, but someone watching the news here wouldn't have known. The second demonstration was portrayed as explicitly anti-capitalist.
Quote:
If the media painted the anarchists as being there to fight cops and destroy stuff, well, what else were they fucking there for?Sadly true. Although I don't see the point in attacking police who have nothing to do with our anger.
Apr 2 2009 21:57
#5
Quote:
I dont think there was a split between the two demos that could define one as "the anti-capitalist one" against the other.
The first demonstration was presented in American media as a gathering of 150 different groups that all have different messages about different issues to the global leaders. In these 150 groups could have been anti-capitalists, but someone watching the news here wouldn't have known. The second demonstration was portrayed as explicitly anti-capitalist.
Quote:
If the media painted the anarchists as being there to fight cops and destroy stuff, well, what else were they fucking there for?
Sadly true. Although I don't see the point in attacking police who have nothing to do with our anger.
Apr 2 2009 22:18
#6
Sorry, obviously not tracking the news enough. Ignore me.
Apr 2 2009 23:02
#7
Quote:
A debate is being forced on the validity of capitalism. Perhaps these kinda events can compliment a growing militant workers' movement which is demonstrated by the 3 factory occupations that have sprung up.
Perhaps, if more of an effort is made to communicate what a 'millitant workers' movement stands for to people attending these events. I was at the bank of england demo and didnt see any real attempts to communicate anti-capitalist ideas, let alone thoughts on what sort of system should replace it. I was suprised to not see any of the flags of the anarchist organisations that were represented on the millitant workers bloc on the 28th, seems like a bit of a missed trick.
Quote:
Sadly true. Although I don't see the point in attacking police who have nothing to do with our anger.
I cant be arsed to explain what I find ridiculous about that statement right now, but from what I saw most people that started trying to break police lines were mainly just pissed off at being prevented from leaving for 5 or 6 hours.
Apr 2 2009 23:20
#8
futility index wrote:
Quote:
A debate is being forced on the validity of capitalism. Perhaps these kinda events can compliment a growing militant workers' movement which is demonstrated by the 3 factory occupations that have sprung up.Perhaps, if more of an effort is made to communicate what a 'millitant workers' movement stands for to people attending these events. I was at the bank of england demo and didnt see any real attempts to communicate anti-capitalist ideas, let alone thoughts on what sort of system should replace it. I was suprised to not see any of the flags of the anarchist organisations that were represented on the millitant workers bloc on the 28th, seems like a bit of a missed trick.
Quote:
Sadly true. Although I don't see the point in attacking police who have nothing to do with our anger.I cant be arsed to explain what I find ridiculous about that statement right now, but from what I saw most people that started trying to break police lines were mainly just pissed off at being prevented from leaving for 5 or 6 hours.
There was no intention to mobilise anarchists as a bloc during April 1st. March 28th is all that was co-ordinated though I assume most people were there on April 1st. I think people were cautious of getting involved with some of the "umbrella" groups which organised the day for political and tactical reasons. Saying that - who the fuck thought 10,000 people would show up!
Apr 3 2009 00:07
#9
Quote:
I have noticed in some of the discussions (on this board and elsewhere) regarding the G20 protests, that there seems to be a bit of a false opposition being constructed between 'symbolic' or communicative protest and practical action. Perhaps the idea that summit protests are pointless is an overreaction to the earlier over-emphasis on them in the 'alter-globalisation' movement.
I agree with this.
I went down to the City and spent several hours handing out propaganda explaining why we were protesting, our view of the ecomonic and environmental crisis and the anarchist approach to solving it.
Lots of ordinary city workers came down to see what was going on and I concentrated on handing stuff out to them, rather than activists. Although, there were also lots of young people on the climate camp demo, so I handed out stuff about anarchism to them because i thought they might know loads about it.
I thought that the city workers were generally curious about what was going on and people were far less hostile than I had expected, given they had been primed by the media to expect attacks from violent nihilists.....
My (admittedly very low) expectations were surpassed and I had a good day until the police kicked off.
Tomorrow i am going to go up to enfield to support the occupation.
So I don't see why we can't do and promote both practical solidarity and participate in symbolic/communicative protest.
Apr 3 2009 01:28
#10
Climate Campers are hippies but to be honest I think that was largely testament to the police's propaganda campaign...I don't think they were really expecting the police to combine brain and brawn or something. The one i chatted to seemed to think the police didn't want violence while watching them smash the shit outta their best mate.
I also managed to get rid of quite a few Catalysts with some security guards as we wandered through the deserted back streets of the City.
Anarcho Notting Hill Carnival?
Apr 3 2009 03:31
#11
Thanks for your reports; I'm sure those of you who’ve been at the protests will be in a better position to assess things in a few days.
Quote:
from what I saw most people that started trying to break police lines were mainly just pissed off at being prevented from leaving for 5 or 6 hours.
Yeah, Duncan Campbell in the Guardian seems to be pretty much blaming the police 'kettling' tactic for the violence. But he seems to be suggesting that it was basically a tactical mistake on their part, while I suspect it achieved exactly what it was intended to achieve. It does look like there was some rather effective 'management' of the protests, such that the sanctioned Put People First march appears as the responsible protest (with the anarchist trouble-makers safely contained and quarantined), while the other actions are forced into becoming violent clashes. The media appear to be 'even-handedly' apportioning blame between the 'violent' militant protesters and the 'ill-considered and badly managed' policing.
Still, the news of factory occupations is very encouraging.
Quote:
The second protest, or the anti-capitalist one, was presented as being a few rowdy Anarchist who came to attack police, break windows, and create havoc.
It is similar in Australia, except the protests as a whole have been totally downplayed, presented as a sideshow to the important politicking of 'world leaders' (and the equally important incident where PM Rudd abused a flight attendant - I guess being young, female, and 'precariat', she didn't fit into his target 'working families' demographic).
Apr 3 2009 09:31
#12
Kambing wrote:
Quote:
from what I saw most people that started trying to break police lines were mainly just pissed off at being prevented from leaving for 5 or 6 hours.Yeah, Duncan Campbell in the Guardian seems to be pretty much blaming the police 'kettling' tactic for the violence. But he seems to be suggesting that it was basically a tactical mistake on their part, while I suspect it achieved exactly what it was intended to achieve.
Your right it was managed. Additionally, I watched riot police with mounted officers and dogs behind them watch while the RBS (with windows unprotected, unlike most other buildings in the area) was stormed, the only resistance coming from riot police already inside the building. Obviously the police arent omnipotent, but this did seem like a tactical retreat in order to create a photo op for the media.
Apr 3 2009 10:21
#13
futility index wrote:
Kambing wrote:
Quote:
from what I saw most people that started trying to break police lines were mainly just pissed off at being prevented from leaving for 5 or 6 hours.Yeah, Duncan Campbell in the Guardian seems to be pretty much blaming the police 'kettling' tactic for the violence. But he seems to be suggesting that it was basically a tactical mistake on their part, while I suspect it achieved exactly what it was intended to achieve.
Your right it was managed. Additionally, I watched riot police with mounted officers and dogs behind them watch while the RBS (with windows unprotected, unlike most other buildings in the area) was stormed, the only resistance coming from riot police already inside the building. Obviously the police arent omnipotent, but this did seem like a tactical retreat in order to create a photo op for the media.
Borderline conspiracy theory, the police had a very specific policing plan on the day and a rigid chain of command. Something unexpected like people actually storming a bank will take a while to repsond to properly.
Apr 3 2009 10:27
#14
What I can't stand at these protests is the surveillance units.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/10/climate-camp-surveillance
damned if you mask up, damned if you don't....
Apr 3 2009 11:33
#15
futility index wrote:
Kambing wrote:
Quote:
from what I saw most people that started trying to break police lines were mainly just pissed off at being prevented from leaving for 5 or 6 hours.Yeah, Duncan Campbell in the Guardian seems to be pretty much blaming the police 'kettling' tactic for the violence. But he seems to be suggesting that it was basically a tactical mistake on their part, while I suspect it achieved exactly what it was intended to achieve.
Your right it was managed. Additionally, I watched riot police with mounted officers and dogs behind them watch while the RBS (with windows unprotected, unlike most other buildings in the area) was stormed, the only resistance coming from riot police already inside the building. Obviously the police arent omnipotent, but this did seem like a tactical retreat in order to create a photo op for the media.
That isn't actually true; the horses were on the street on the left, far from RBS. There was a line of bobbies down Threadneedle Street, but they were pushed far too much back to do anything about it. Ground was only lost when they put on their riot gear.
Apr 3 2009 12:07
#16
Statement by some London anarchists on the death on Wednesday:
Witnesses Statement: Death at G20
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Various participants in the City of London demonstrations on April 1st have come forward as witnesses to the collapse of a man later identified by authorities as Ian Tomlinson. Four different university students witnessed the collapse of Mr. Tomlinson. "He stumbled towards us from the direction of police and protestors and collapsed," said Peter Apps. "I saw a demonstrator who was a first aider attend to the person who had collapsed. The man was late 40s, had tattoos on his hands, and was wearing a Millwall shirt."
While the first aider was helping the man, another demonstrator with a megaphone was calling the police over so that they could help.
Natalie Langford, a student at Queen Mary, said "there was a police charge. A lot of people ran in our direction. The woman giving first aid stood in the path of the crowd." The running people, seeing a guy on the ground, went around them.
Another demonstrator had already called 999 and was getting medical advice from the ambulance dispatcher. "Four police with two police medics came. They told her [the first aider] to 'move along'.", said Peter Apps. "Then they pushed her forcibly away from him. They refused to listen to her [the first aider] when she tried to explain his condition."
The first aider, who did not wish to be named, said "The police surrounded the collapsed man. I was standing with the person who'd called 999. The ambulance dispatcher wanted to talk to the police, the phone was being held out to them, but the police refused."
Another witness, Elias Stoakes, added "we didn't see them [the police] perform CPR."
Other people who had tried to stay with the collapsed man were also pushed away.
All of the witnesses deny the allegation that many missiles were thrown.
According to Peter Apps, "one bottle was thrown, but it didn't come close to the police. Nothing was thrown afterwards as other demonstrators told the person to stop. The person who threw the bottle probably didn't realize that someone was behind the ring of police." All the witnesses said that the demonstrators were concerned for the well-being of the collapsed man once they realized that there was an injured person.
Natalie Langford said "when the ambulance arrived the protestors got straight out of the way."
These witnesses are happy to give media statements.
They can be contacted through this press liasion email: g20witnesses@gmail.com
Apr 3 2009 12:51
#17
The other events that happened to coincide with the G20 were a complete and utter waste of peoples time and effort. Marching to pre arranged points and listening to overpaid bureaucrats condemning over paid capitists does fuck all to advance the chances of a real fight back against the bosses attempts to make us pay for their crisis.
Marching and protest has become a hobbist passtime and in no way threatens the state and has no impact on the bosses.
The anti war movement is a perfect example of this. Bringing hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets and then just sending them home again after listening to the same old boring bastards lecture us in some park. What is needed is real action which targets the bosses and the governments ability to carry out their plans. Actions such as the Derry campaign against Raytheon show the way forward, physically preventing acts which contribute to the war effort. The recent spate of factory occupations and the direct action taken against individual bank bosses do far more to bolster class confidence than listening to the same old fuckers condemning the government from some cosy platform.
Yes we need to be on streets but not to go for a quiet walk and go home again. It's is about time we took real action to stop the bosses in their tracks.
Apr 3 2009 20:54
#18
Death at G20: witness statement videos
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/1023
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/1038
Not much time to comment right now. I was really surprised by how events unfolded yesterday. There were enough people who were sufficiently pissed off and the cops hyped it up enough to really make it get quite violent. It is spectacular, substitutionist and more than a little bit macho, but that's not to say such public outpourings of rage are completely worthless. A debate is being forced on the validity of capitalism. Perhaps these kinda events can compliment a growing militant workers' movement which is demonstrated by the 3 factory occupations that have sprung up.