feedback on the Climatre Camp

So you're saying the SWP's line on direct action is the same as mine, and is that disabled people can't climb up and lock themselves to cranes, and some people can't afford to go round locking themselves to stuff. And this is false. Righto.

Also I'm sure the SWP doesn't demand Ireland nationalise its oil, I'm sure its view on that is probably the same as mine as well. Because I'm a trot obviously, and you are Mr Anarkiste.

i am a primmo!

Clearly pensioners and others free from the clutches of the megamachine can see the futility of work and its minions.

John., your argument is a bit ridiculous here, and the way you are explaining yourself it really does sound like the SWP. I don't think you actually hold such an unnuanced position but you are being extremely distortional of others ans so setting yourself up for it.

oh yeah, its really telling

Where is the “spectacular elitist shite” involved in the Liverpool Docks occupation -

…similarly as far as I understand it the point of Reclaim the Streets is to occupy a piece of street or roadway and throw a party. Not something I’m particularly into, but surely it is a mass action of sorts, see for instance 6,000 people at the M41 RTS in 1996.

AFAIK London RTS - of which I know little about - did produce propaganda also - there were a bunch of spoof newspapers, I remember getting one…The Spun I think it was called.

It is pretty obvious to me that this occupation and mass picket, strike support, and I believe there was a march and a conference jointly organised too? is by no means the be all and end all, but I’m fucked if I know how it is “spectacular elitist shite”

I may be missing something but it also seems to me to be a step up from just going down the picket, I’m not sure how it can be counter-posed to just going down the picket, when it is that, and a bit extra.

I think the discussion on this thread, and others pertaining to the climate camp, particularly this “spectacular elitist shite” thing, enters into the realm of parody. There are serious points of criticism to be made, but, here they all too often seem to be lost in an approach that has as its starting point ALL of anything ANY of these folk do (activists, hippies, whoever) is shite, even if that starting point isn’t consistently maintained.

As with revolism the injury is done to the case of the person making the “criticism” (who CAN have something of a case) rather than to whatever they are arguing against.

In regard to people with children, people with disabilities and so on, yes there is a Club 18 - 30 “activism” phenomenon (personally I think forms of organisation are mostly to do with that - rather than particularly methods of action). The very same argument here could be applied to the Poll Tax riot, or to the hit squads of the Miners Strike (and by the same token one could argue that you couldn’t say that say desertion and mutiny is more important than I dunno putting out an anti-war leaflet as only soldiers can do the former!).
However I have seen, and worked alongside, parents and disabled people involved in “spectacular elitist shite”.

I think people are letting their often justified distaste towards some forms of political activity, and some of the notions surrounding such, cloud their vision.

Well I could be wrong but I think John's comment is against "direct action as ideology" rather than specific methods of action which are sometimes great, sometimes completely divorced from the contexts they were great but done anyway regardless.

In the context of saying "if you're not locking on your not doing anything" it's fine, the actual comment about disabled people/the elderly I don't really agree with hiim as such because thereare examples of such groups engaging in risky/violent action as others have pointed out. The idea that "everyone" should do it all the time regardless of context (which is pretty close to Dublin Dave's position I think) is just ridiculous though, which what it was written in response to.

Well I think that's a result of so many people on this site having been involved in similar stuff then rejecting it (not me, I was never an activist-ist, although I was and am interested in ecology so have particular criticisms of various approaches to that). I think in an effort to distance themselves from it some posters bend the stick too far in the other direction. Having said that I think you're far too inclined in the other direction, seeing all kinds of things which really don't seem to be there and overemphasising the relevance of things like the climate camp - when we both agree far more interesting and worthwhile stuff is going on.

Yeah but that ain't remotely what dublindave is saying...(and dublindave is a member of SolFed?) what I read in the OP is a couple of episodes of strike support carried out by RTS is "worth so much more than turning up on a picket line to sell/give out anarchist propaganda"....this is self evident, though I think there is a hint of a dismissive tone there that is perhaps unfortunate. If <some other group> in <some other dispute> had organised a mass picket and occupation in solidarity with, and alongside in co-operation with, a group of striking workers, it would be unthinkable for them to catch flak as carrying on "elitist activist shite". Basically it were done by the wrong people.....and in fact this response to the OP bears out what dublindave was saying about vitriol and that.

Obviously dublindave isn't taking a "if your not locking on you are not doing anything" position, and neither were RTS, we are talking about strike support for fucks sake....a few eco-activist types rowing in behind a group of striking workers in solidarity with them.

No it's not - its entirely dependent upon the circumstances. In many cases the former would be less useful than the latter, for example when the activistoids act off their own bat to intervene in a workers' dispute, as happened embarrassingly a year or two ago.

That's strange, from my point of view most of the vitriol has been directed at me for saying that certain types of more exclusive activity are inherently worth more than other more inclusive types.

No I maintained, in our previous discussion, that:
(1) The politics of the camp were not ALL "green liberalism" or "environmental reformism" or whatever you want to call it.
(2) That seeing as it was protesting government policy it wasn't operating completly on the level of lifestyle change.
(3) It had to be seen in the context of the long running local opposition to the runway expansion.

These things have been amply demonstrated on the threads where people give their report backs from the climate camp, and by the links I dug up about it.

So what are the "all kinds of things" I'm seeing "which really don't seem to be there"......if anything I'm a critic of much of the climate camp activity, and of some of the groups involved...the reason I'm arguing here is cause I think some of the shite on these boards undermine those criticisms...., and I'm afraid some of the intelligent commentary tends to do that too - for instance misrepresenting the extent of the liberal-lifestylist politics, not mentioning the context of the Heathrow camp in relation to the local community (a marked and all important difference from Drax), and, frankly, tolerating the shite.

Bullshit. The OP mentioned two specific episodes - both involving a situation of co-operation aka "the circumstances".
You are only proving my point "the activistoids act off their own bat to intervene in a workers' dispute" so one group of people - who are "activistoids" do something which is crap, therefore allowing you to condemn anyone that in your book are also "activistoids" even if they are different people and what they are doing isn't crap (or even the same people doing something that isn't crap).

then i suspect catch you never will.

catch mate, you really do need time away from the internet. You have indeed answered my questions and raised a whole slew of new ones that i shall take to the appropriate thread. Although i will warn "the postal worker" is set to become the libcom version of 9 liberated chickens if you're not careful

Someone from nippon express strike came down to the camp with his family, had a chat with him at the bar about the climate camp, he was impressed with what was going on and commented that in fact both struggles were one and the same, which under the circumstances makes people obsessing about d locks seem even more oddly out of touch.

So maybe tell us of your criticisms of the two specific instances the OP refers to - both of which apparently involved co-operation between a group of strikers and a group of eco-activists...rather than "argghhh they have dreadlocks and D-Locks", at the moment all this parody is doing is making a case against the people who make a case against the "activist ghetto".

Let me get this straight. So if me and the four others who went to Mount Pleasant at 5am on Thursday morning a couple of weeks ago, instead of giving out a leaflet on the dispute had locked ourselves onto the gate to stop the vans driving out, this would've been self evidently worth more? Surely you don't think this?

there's some serious at-crossed-purposes going on here and it's making everyone look stupid.

Catch is objecting to the notion that d-locking is always superior to visiting picket lines, Terry is insisting that it sometimes is, in specific circumstances. These aren't mutually exclusive positions.

And neither episode dublindave was referring to remotely resemble that...as you know well - if you had worked with a group of strikers to bring a whole bunch of supporters down and have a mass picket and occupation as was the case in the Liverpool Docks situation yes that would be self-evidently a step up from distributing a bulletin (but obviously doesn't preclude distributing bulletins) I doubt if no one brought propaganda down to the Liverpool docks on that instance.

Anyone want to discuss the actual instances raised in the OP? Are they actually "spectacular elitist shite"? I'm waiting to be convinced.

Well usually people in that milieu see lifestyle change as a political step forwards from lobbying the government for more regulation, so I didn't think it necessary to mention all the other potentially crap politics that might have been there on a big laundry list just in case they were represented and later brought up as a defense.

Which you spent 3/4 of the thread mentioning whilst admitting zero knowledge of (as I did).

From your posts, you seem to see it as a potential nuclei of a new grass roots direct action movement - potentially along the lines of the anti-nuclear protests (excuse unintentional pun) of the '70s or anti-roads protests of the '90s - there's some logic to this since climate change is a far more totalising process than either of those - and which could be intervened in and won to class positions. However rather than a lot of people new to politics, your own posts have demonstrated that out of 800 people or so, a large number at the camp were pretty much set in their politics. Posi - who attended the camp, said quite clearly he doesn't think it's going to lead to anything much (much as we might all hope that it actually would - it's not as if I think a widespread grassroots ecology movement would be a bad thing, it'd be great, I'm just very pessimistic that anything like that is happening here).

Well if you think "protesting government policy" automatically excludes people from the "liberal-lifestylist" (your term, not mine) milieu then I'm not sure who's doing the misrepresenting.

Joesph K. I havn't seen anyone on this thread claim randomly d-locking oneself to something or other during the course of a strike is superior to anything - two specific instances have been raised - one of which, the one I'm familiar with in the Liverpool Docks, involved a mass action organised in co-operation with the strikers. It isn't cross purposes. It is either a red herring or peoples vision is seriously clouded.

Well yeah I took other peoples' word for it...then through the magic of google I was able to find out a little about what was going on there over in London.

Do you think the long running local opposition to the airport expansion isn't of significance?

"potentially crap politics" remember I mentioned the difference between supporting an action and criticising the politics.

Yeah actually I don't think I would compare the anti-nuclear protests with the anti-roads stuff but anyways....yeah potentially it is...but like you I would be pessimistic about that.....however the important thing about the Heathrow camp....which marks it off from the Drax camp...is the long running local opposition to airport expansion...this was actually a more explicit element with its two sister camps in the U.S. - one in a place in Appalachia where the issue is mountain top removal and another where they are looking to build an LNG terminal.

yes i know that's what you're saying, but catch reads dublin dave's post as saying that, or at least implying it, and is reacting accordingly. you're right that dublin dave was referring to specific actions, not actions in general, but the 'what have class struggle anarchists ever done?' implied a more general support for the 'activistist' approach, which i think catch is reacting to. i'm pretty sure you both agree that sometimes, in sepcific circumstances i.e. in co-operation etc, direct action by non-strikers can be a good thing, but it isn't always, so it seems a bit of a red herring to the more substantial issues being discussed (such as whether an ecological movement akin to the anti-roads or anti-nuclear movements is possible, emerging now, or the climate camp has anything to do with it).

Let's just repost Dublin Dave's OP since it appears to be getting lost in "two incidences of direct action":

This is clearly counterposing RTS and Earth First to the "(class struggle) anarchist movement" and "Solfed", and taking particular methods of direct action at certain high points of struggles (which we've not really seen in the UK since the dockers) into some a-historical tactic-as-ideology to be counterposed against other ideologies. It's disingenuous for you to suggest that it's John. who proposed that dichotomy, even if I think he could have done better debunking it completely rather than arguing on Dublin Dave's terms. If we take DD literally, then a couple of RTS and Earth First actions in the '90s are pitted against the whole of class struggle anarchism, down to Spain '36 and all the way back to Makhno, like I said before, it's a ridiculous statement to make, but your pig-headedness leads you to defending the indefensible yet again.

You need an embryo for such a movement to develop - a movement something like the anti-nuclear protests - that embryo can be found in co-operation between environmental justice campaigns and the direct action ecology scene.....but for such an embryo to grow is dependant on the wider context of the class struggle.
Like the anti-nuclear protests...in France and Ireland and Germany...were in a context where there was a far wider degree of politicisation, combativity, confidence and solidarity as there was a far higher degree of class struggle across the board. The anti-roads stuff was pretty marginal by comparision.

Dublindave is in Sol Fed yeah? I'm sure he meant it that way.

I agree with John. here, direct action is not 'self-evidently' better than moving information.

Isolated direct actions in themselves for example are a waste of time, they don't do enough damage to warrant the danger and usually are easily dealt with by police.

What is important is the publicity aspect. In the Climate Camp, the activists have had to back up what they've done with a massive media campaign to try and get the message across and widen their support base. Otherwise, what actual point is there in supergluing your hands to the doors of BAA? It's not like a multibillion pound company is just going to hold their hands up and say 'whoa, didn't realise you cared that much, we'll just pack up now'.

The actions we've seen over the last couple of weeks are in fact simply a different way of trying to do exactly what Dispatch is designed for - publicising a point of view. It was certainly never about shutting down Stansted.

In which case talking about one being 'self-evidently' better than the other is nonsensicle, they're the same thing with different emphasis - one reliant on creating a spectacle to draw in widespread interest, one on a direct-mail approach specifically aimed at being accessible and doable by all, even if they have very little time, expertise or ability to go around D-locking themselves to stuff.

Direct action is best as a complement to information distribution, not as a competitor - and both need to be thought through properly.

This is where Dispatch deserves some respect, because regardless of coffeemachine's unfair (and inaccurate, having been on the posties forum I know catch in particular engaged with quite a lot of people while it was being put together) comment, it was a good idea and has the potential to be very effective.

Where climate camp clearly succeeded was in drawing in a wide variety of people into circles which help to break down the barriers to direct action in general society - something which yes, the internet isn't great for because it is not a physical space. Where it continues to struggle is in providing and promoting a coherent political view over the long term on how its basic aims should be achieved to the general public - thus allowing the media to frame a 'solution' which may be worse than the problem.

There is no equivalent to the Dispatch in the activist movement, and it's difficult to see, given the wide and often conflicting views it embraces in its quest to be 'mass', how this equivalent could emerge.

seeing yours and JK's posts.
Yes this particular sentence taken completely out of context:

Doesn't warrant a "substitutionist activist-ist bullshit" response (not that I've said that). Particularly since I don't think leaflets targeted at disputes should be "anarchist propaganda" anyway.

However it's actually in the context of comparing two actions (and loose organisations) which happened within the space of few years, to 140 years of (class struggle) anarchist history and a 15-20 year old organisation. Now I don't consider myself an anarchist, don't think there's an "anarchist movement", nor am I solfed's biggest fan by any means at all; But I already posted up the workmates example which, although far less glamorous than turning up on the day and D-locking yourself to something, is the day-to-day hard work of building working class militancy within the workplace - which can never, ever, be replaced by outside activists. Now I don't know all that much about workmates really, doesn't seem to be much around on it, but if they were organising strike committees and work-to-rules etc. outside the (RMT if not anarcho-syndicalist) union framework then it beats both picket line leafleting and D-locking hands down.

no idea. Perhaps you should ask him.

What way? Who are you responding to?

Like I say Catch you can read a post from a member of Sol Fed as meaning that if you like. I would read it like well c'mon fair is fair we never managed to do something like that and that was good.

Saii it isn't "direct action" versus "propaganda" - what the OP talks about is, in the Liverpool Docks instance, a mass action involving mass picketting and an occupation, which I'm pretty sure included "propgaganda" - and people talking to each other, and again probably got a fair bit of publicity in the media, which is obviously and self-evidently a step up from just going down the picket with propaganda - it is that, and some more.

Mm on the subject of direct-action support for strikes, that's the key word - support. It's not helping anyone to organise better, it's not winning the stuggle for them, it's a support action. A welcome one, to be sure, but limited to a few hours in one location.

Informing people what's going on in Scotland with wildcat strikes, or that most other offices are doing work-to-rule, or explaining what actions people can take which are most damaging, are also support actions. Ones which reach far wider than you'd think, because it's not just posties who read them, so potential supporters from outside the dispute can also be activated through improved knowledge (eg. knowing exactly which day their nearby distribution office is going to be out - perhaps so they can do a bit of direct action).

Neither are a bad thing, but one is not 'worth so much more' than the other.

What are you going on about? I haven't said anything about the two episodes the OP mentioned, let alone "condemn" them as "crap." I don't know much about them, and I don't really care. I was pointing out that physical small group direct action isn't inherently worth more than other kinds of activity - it all depends on the circumstances. Saii appears to have understood what I was saying.

John "spectacular elitest shite" was your description of the two instances the OP mentions - your second post in this thread - on the first page - it was a direct response that quoted the text from the OP referring to the two instances.

Depends on the circumstances and on the "propaganda" in question Saii - in the context of Dispatch and of the postal workers strike I would agree with you, in the context of the Liverpool Dockers dispute I think perhaps it is the other way around (and again I don't think the impact or idea behind the piece of action in question was simply to disrupt production). In any case the important thing to me is the instances DublinDave citied were NOT "elitist spectacular shite".