Xtra! The Paper for Armchair Terrorists

Xtra! logo
Xtra! logo

Online archive of Xtra! - an anarchist/autonomist newspaper published in North London from 1979 until 1982. It seems like there were 10 issues?

Xtra's "Structureless Tyrants" included Simon Read (who infamously infiltrated the National Front's HQ Excalibur House in Shoreditch and became a key witness in the inquiry set up to investigate it). Martin Wright (who would later be involved with Class War) was also a contributor.

In 1981 a teenage Chemistry student in Nottingham was sentenced to three years imprisonment for distributing 200 photocopies of issue 8's cover story ("Burn Babylon Burn" on the Brixton riots) - see Black Flag vol 6 #11 p8.

Author
Submitted by Fozzie on July 17, 2020

Files

IMG_1534.jpg (1.14 MB)

Comments

Serge Forward

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Serge Forward on July 17, 2020

Xtra was my favourite read, back in the day!

Fozzie

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fozzie on July 18, 2020

It's a bit subcultural which doesn't ever age that well, but the uncompromising snide attitude is pretty refreshing still I reckon.

The stuff in the pilot issue and issue 8 about a member of Xtra! infiltrating the NF HQ and then getting nicked for trying to poison fash hardman Derrick Day is like something out of a TV thriller!

Serge Forward

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Serge Forward on July 18, 2020

I only started reading it about issue 4 but was well impressed... "uncompromisingly snide"... that would have been a good slogan :D The Derrick Day stuff was dead good.

R Totale

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by R Totale on July 18, 2020

Ah, I think that's the same NF infiltrator who was profiled/interviewed here: https://invereskstreet.blogspot.com/2012/01/simon-says-by-ian-walker.html

Fozzie

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fozzie on July 18, 2020

Yup same one.

Steven.

1 year 4 months ago

Submitted by Steven. on November 24, 2022

Damn shame we missed it!

Fozzie

1 year 4 months ago

Submitted by Fozzie on November 24, 2022

£150 seems a bit steep though, especially as the auction includes a t-shirt and a bunch of material that is already on Libcom...

Steven.

1 year 4 months ago

Submitted by Steven. on November 24, 2022

Yeah definitely, if we had seen it we would have sent a message and asked to buy that just by itself

Fozzie

1 year 4 months ago

Submitted by Fozzie on November 24, 2022

Ah right - good to know if I spot anything similar in future...

Submitted by Steven. on November 25, 2022

Fozzie wrote: Ah right - good to know if I spot anything similar in future...

Great, thanks. Even if something is quite expensive potentially we could try to crowdfund it. Back in the day we did that with a bunch of solidarity materials

Xtra! Pilot issue Nov 1979

Pilot issue of Xtra! from November 1979.

Articles on Persons Unknown trial, an Xtra! exclusive on the National Front's HQ Excalibur House (and feature on its notorious minder Derrick Day), Nuclear Power, splits in the Labour Party, health, abortion used to choose the sex of a child, Do The Workers Really Want Control?, self help guide for arrestees, film censorship, working conditions at Haymarket Publishing, denationalise the Church of England, Nuclear Waste.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 17, 2020

Files

Comments

Xtra! #2 Jan 1980

2nd issue of Xtra!

Contents include: Xtra! collective member gives evidence at inquiry into NF HQ Excalibur House, protest march against Excalibur House, early days of Thatcher government, overview of the NF and how to infiltrate it, what to do when you're facing trial, French Anarchist Federation conference report, the S.A.S. - its history, training and ideology, disruption of Labour Party mass meeting, critical reflections on anarcha-feminist conference, anarchism and fascism - the Italian connection, contacts.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 18, 2020

Files

Xtra-02.pdf (6.75 MB)

Comments

Fozzie

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fozzie on July 27, 2020

Thanks once again to the donor for a scan of a complete issue.

Boris Sev

4 months 4 weeks ago

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 1, 2023

The article on the SAS (Special Air Service of the British Army) in "Xtra" Issue 2 wasn't satire, given that the author X was actually a member of the SAS at the time. admin: real name removed. Our site guidelines forbid disclosing people's real names and private information without their consent.

This was the guy who

* started the London Anarchist Bookfairs,

* became a longtime fixture at the Freedom building in Whitechapel, and

* wrote the activist manual "Bumping Back" and the novel "Dangerous Men" under the name "L Hobley."

The really interesting question is how the fact that he was in the SAS was handled in the London autonomist or "clever anarchist" or politico-situationist scene.

It was never questioned or problematised. It was kept in the know of a few individuals, who basically took the attitude "Let X be X. He's a Stirnerite, you know."

Those who weren't in the know didn't get put in the know, and so they couldn't make an issue about it. Which worked well, because many of them would have favoured kicking the SAS man out, as far as it was possible to kick him, had they actually known he was in the SAS.

Perhaps they should have guessed. Who can say now?

As things were arranged, though, they didn't even manage to ask any questions about it. These would have included

1. "Have you served in Ireland?"

2. "What operations have you been on?"

3. "Does anyone senior to you in rank know you're an active anarchist? Because we thought British soldiers weren't allowed to be involved in politics. So did you get special permission then?"

In my experience, those who recommend the text "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" usually practice it.

Because if for example there were a fixed organisation with membership, and say monthly meetings of all members, someone would have brought the guy's membership of the SAS up.

Fozzie

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by Fozzie on November 2, 2023

It seems wildly unlikely to me that some people knew that this guy was in the SAS in 1980 and yet this has not become common knowlege in the intervening 40 years.

Parts of the the London anarchist scene are fuelled entirely by gossip and grudges and yet somehow this has remained a secret until yesterday?

Boris Sev

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 2, 2023

Great - then you will have to revise some assumptions when you check this out and verify it, which I urge you to do. The best thing would be to speak to those who were leading lights in Xtra. You might also speak to X himself, who I think will probably admit it.

Also read those two books. I'm not sure whether anyone has reviewed them here yet.

"Why has this not become common knowledge?" is absolutely the right question to ask.

The attitude "He's OK - he's of the Stirnerite faith" would be my summary of how some of those who knew about it justified being OK with it.

As I understand it, X was in 21 or 23 SAS not 22, just to be clear.

I haven't re-read every edition of Xtra, but I noticed that in one issue two comrades were named (by their first names). These two to my certain knowledge both knew of X's ongoing special forces service, which he didn't hide from them.

And, again just to be absolutely clear, in case anyone who is looking at this 40 years later might get the wrong idea, X is NOT, repeat NOT, the same person as Martin W.

Fozzie

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by Fozzie on November 2, 2023

I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. As far as I'm aware I've never met X.

Boris Sev

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 2, 2023

Fair enough. If you don't wish to dig into it, that's fine.

I feel no onus though. X is contactable easily enough. So is at least one of those two guys who were involved in Xtra and named in it. I would imagine they would both talk to you freely after all this time if you did decide you were sufficiently interested. As no doubt would a few others.

I just thought I would put a note here on your copy of the issue of Xtra that included the SAS article, and give the refs to the two books, and put in something about the "tyranny of structurelessness" too because IMHO that's kinda the right area to be thinking in when addressing the question of how TF did this stay so little known for so long.

Boris Sev

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 2, 2023

From the SAS article in "Xtra", issue 2, January 1980:

"I once watched two SAS NCOs trying to work out which way you do an about turn. Eventually they got it wrong and there is now a group of SAS recruits with a very distinctive form of drill."

He's hiding it in plain sight, to coin a cliché.

And this was still a few months BEFORE the Iran embassy siege which was when the SAS first drew public attention in a big way. There weren't any Andy McNab novels at that time. The SAS weren't yet the "glory boys" that they became (somewhat to the disdain of their naval cousins the SBS).

You talk of "evidence", @Foz, but I'm not trying to put anyone on trial. I'm for truth and reconciliation. And I think there are lessons to be drawn about organisation, and that if organisation had been better (somehow - goodness knows how that would have been achieved, but it should have been) then people would have asked X the three questions I asked (1. Ireland, 2. What ops, and 3. Did he get clearance to be an active anarchist. And probably others too.) The third question is interesting because there is surely no way (not even now, and definitely not pre-embassy) that a serving member of the SAS would write about the SAS in a periodical without getting clearance, let alone engage in other anarchist political activities.

Boris Sev

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 2, 2023

admin: links revealing personal information removed

X is a Restaurateur. [...]
Their most recent appointment, in our records, was to FRIENDS OF FREEDOM PRESS LIMITED on 2015-07-27, from which they resigned on 2016-06-22."

Truth and reconciliation is definitely the way.

Benefits:
1. Some tough lessons about organisation, and who needs to know what and about whom. I don't know what the lessons will be. Probably nobody will be pleased with them.
2. An amazing story waits to be told here.

Boris Sev

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 2, 2023

I've emailed X to draw his attention to this thread and ask him to come here and comment, which hopefully he will.

libcom

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by libcom on November 6, 2023

Everyone please note that we do not allow revealing people's private information without their consent here. Real names have been edited out. Please desist from using real names in future.

Boris Sev

4 months 3 weeks ago

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 8, 2023

At this moment I am looking at the Special Demonstration Squad's annual report for 1979 which has been submitted to the Undercover Policing Inquiry. This states that SDS officers had penetrated or gained access to the London Workers' Group, the Rising Free Collective, the Freedom Collective, Persons Unknown, the "Autonomous Group" formerly the "LSE Monday Club", the Direct Action Movement, and the Revolutionary Prisoners' Group.

https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/MPS_0728963.pdf

One anarchist group had its name redacted in that document.

What purports to be and probably is the 1980 report is here:

https://theferret.scot/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Special-Branch-report-on-SCRAM-one.pdf

This too has a reference to an anarchist group redacted. The unredacted references this time include a reference to the "Krondstat [sic] Kids (formerly the Autonomous Group)", and the Rising Free Collective, London Workers' Group, and Freedom Collective all appear again.

At that time the SDS says it had 12 operational field officers, so we can reasonably run with the hypothesis that not every anarchist group mentioned had a unique officer who had penetrated or gained access to it. Bear in mind that the SDS was also acting in Trotskyist and "Marxist-Leninist" circles.

So start looking for individuals in whom different anarchist groups overlapped and in particular different anarchist scenes for which you wouldn't have thought it was in keeping with their respective politics for them to overlap.

Look for example at the overlap between the "clever and Situationist-influenced" types, autonomo-workerist types, and the Freedom scene. Should there have even been an overlap of the first two scenes with the Freedom scene? Y'know, FREEDOM, widely viewed by the aforementioned as a hive of liberalism. Probably not, but nonetheless there was one. Step forward, Mr X.

Those who are interested in this stuff should read the book "Dangerous Men" authored by the pseudonymous "L Hobley".

I am not suggesting that the person who used the name "L Hobley", whose real name is known to me, as are a number of his other pseudonyms, was "plod". "L Hobley's" attitude to "plod" is quite clear and it's pretty much what you would expect from someone who's been in the SAS.

One of the most interesting features for me is how the SAS man was defended, and shielded from criticism, by practically the entire "in-crowd" (not that it was very big) in the Rising Free - Persons Unknown - Xtra scene. I'm not especially interested in how the said SAS man became a long-term fixture at the Freedom building and at the London Anarchist Bookfair, but I think there are others who will be interested in those angles.

Even given NORTHERN IRELAND and the role of the British army including the SAS in that region, this SAS MAN didn't get into trouble among ANARCHISTS, not even in NORTH LONDON areas such as ISLINGTON. Instead he basically became Trusted X and was handed "the keys", which in fact he still keeps and uses. (Or at least he did until a short period of time ago. My information is that he has suffered a stroke. Let us hope he fully recovers and can then answer polite questions.)

Need I say - perhaps I do need to say, so here it is: don't trust anybody who's in the SAS, and don't let it go when someone says you should and says "Oh don't worry about X. That's just how he is."

Any mode of organisation that would have been unaccepting of this SAS man would have been superior, at least in this respect, to any mode that accepted him. That is possibly not a welcome point for anyone, but its truth seems to be inarguable and the conclusion should be that none of us were wholly right about organisational matters and we should all look at organisational questions that we might not be especially inclined to look at.

westartfromhere

4 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on November 9, 2023

Infiltration by agents of the state is just one pitfall of organisational forms of anarchism. When I typed in, organic, anti-organisational form of anarchy, I came to this:

'...the anti-organisational current which had its roots in the theorisations of Kropotkin. In Kropotkinist * theory, in fact, the aim of revolutionary action is always a society where “everyone gives according to their ability and everyone receives according to their needs”, in other words – communism. But this communism is understood as a natural harmonious state which humanity would inevitably tend towards as a result of two parallel causes: the inborn, natural solidarity of Man and the idea of the basic goodness of the human soul which lead to a preference for any form of spontaneism. Furthermore, once it has been freed from capitalist dominion, scientific progress (which capitalist domination uses to distance Man from nature) will be a potent factor in the formation of a new Man who will be conscious and in harmony with nature.'

Boris Sev

4 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 9, 2023

Are you an Artificial Intelligence bot? Anything that more than one person cooperates on has to be organised in some way. State infiltration and influence is a practical question, not an abstract theoretical one or one that should be reasoned about beginning from what communism will be like in the far future, or how to read Kropotkin.

I think the answer to the question I raised is to do with encouraging everyone who's even remotely involved, who's viewed as being there in good faith and having their "heart in the right place", and who may not be giving off great clouds of charisma compared to those who are "clever" and "experienced activists", to say what they think and how they feel.

Because I can tell you, if even one person had FORCED a proper conversation about this guy Mr X being in the SAS, it would have been like saying "Rumpelstiltskin" and he would NOT have been allowed to stick around in any part of the anarchist scene much longer.

The whole way it worked, for him to stay put, was that when some "junior element" kind of began to question his activities (as you can imagine people did), a "senior" element would say (in effect) "Don't worry, we know about him, he's a Stirnerite, oh yes and I'm really clever, and so are my fellow seniors, but thanks for your input."

That's how potential difficulties for the SAS man's presence were squelched, strangled.

As you might imagine, he was doing various illegal stuff. (No surprise there!) Often these things would involve skills he was learning and practising and not just in the Brecon Beacons. The atmosphere was "Let's not talk about Mr X. He's okay. Okay?" He's also, of course, highly intelligent, as comes through clearly in the two "L Hobley" books (albeit not in the poetry he's written in his later years which is awful).

And I'm not saying those protective senior elements were state agents. Most probably weren't. Just naive and secure. (Too damned secure!)

As it happened, nobody got to a position to shout "Rumpelstiltskin", and Mr X has stuck around for 40 years and become pretty much a lynchpin of the anarchist movement.

Steven.

4 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by Steven. on November 10, 2023

That's terrible if he has had a stroke, I hope he gets well soon.
In terms of what you are alleging, can I just try to understand it properly.
You are now talking about police infiltration, so are you saying he was also a police officer?
Or if just the SAS, are you saying that he was formerly in the SAS, or that he was actively the whole time he was also involved in the anarchist movement?

westartfromhere

4 months 2 weeks ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on November 10, 2023

Anything that more than one person cooperates on has to be organised in some way.

Was the August 2011 insurrection in the UK organised? No, it was a spontaneous counter-action to state terrorism. Yet thousands co-operated in the battle against the forces of order and expropriation of former merchandise. This anarchical operation had a more detrimental effect—to capital—on the value of capital than anything anarchists have ever achieved in Britain.

Submitted by Boris Sev on November 11, 2023

Steven. wrote: That's terrible if he has had a stroke, I hope he gets well soon.
In terms of what you are alleging, can I just try to understand it properly.
You are now talking about police infiltration, so are you saying he was also a police officer?
Or if just the SAS, are you saying that he was formerly in the SAS, or that he was actively the whole time he was also involved in the anarchist movement?

Taking your questions in turn:

1. I am not saying he was a police officer. But the SDS was a serious and capable outfit and there would have been liaison with the army at some level, just to make sure they didn't obstruct each other. ("Tread on each other's toes" would be too mild a way of putting it.) Given the level of SDS access, they must have known Mr X was in the SAS. We can take that for granted. (It's also reasonable to speculate that the army - although not necessarily the SAS - surely had some assets inthe many red flag-waving parts of the London or London-centred left that showed a special interest in Northern Ireland, so police-army cooperation would have been a "thing".) The documentation presented to the UCPI says SDS officers had either "penetrated" or "gained access" to various (mostly named) anarchist groups. "Gained access" to might cover chats with a (highly skilled) SAS guy who was on the inside as well as things like doing the electrics and plumbing which had a smaller element of "humint". There is stuff about the police in "Dangerous Men" and also in "Bumping Back" which may repay close study. Mr X obviously knows some aspects of police work well and he also has a good grasp of how to bend cops to his will.

2. I am saying he was in the SAS (not 22 but 21 or 23) while he was in Xtra and for a while afterwards and while he was establishing himself in the building in Whitechapel, and this was known to several comrades. So yes, this was while he was in the anarchist movement. But I doubt he was rolling over stone walls showing a minimal silhouette or doing much abseiling 30 years later when he was still in the anarchist movement. We are talking about training and exercises and whether he went on any ops I don't know but would like to know. Certainly the SAS (or any other part of the armed forces) would not allow someone e.g. to be an activist in a major political party without formal permission from them, so in any scenario he would have been discussing his anarchist activities with senior officers. Never mind the whole ethos of being a self-starter and a self-reliant individual that is at a premium in that elite part of the British army. They wouldn't have said just get on with it, everyone's got to have a hobby, and most of us types like to have challenging ones, and come and see us if you ever need to. They know their guys love their brand (even several who have fallen out with the regiment are fiercely loyal to it), but that isn't sufficient to be certain that nobody will ever be turned (e.g. by the IRA), go native (see what he says about the Angry Brigade), or for that matter go rogue (sure, they select for psychological stability, but sh*t happens - these guys know all about living in hedges). I'd like to know whether he applied to the SAS while already in the army (or as reservist who'd finished his service), or as a walk-in, which it's possible to do with both 21 and 23 AIUI.

Xtra! #3 1980

Xtra 3 cover
Xtra 3 cover

Issue 3 of Xtra! from 1980.

A compressed version of the scan made available by the comrades at Sparrows Nest, Nottingham.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 18, 2020

Contents include:

  • Russian invasion of Afghanistan
  • Ronan Bennett arrested
  • New anarchist centre in London (Wapping Autonomy Centre)
  • Martin Wright responds to discusson in the previous issue about an anarcho-feminist conference in London
  • Moscow Olympics (contrasting civil rights in Russia and Thatcher's Britain)
  • Catering and hotel workers - unions, shit conditions etc
  • IQ tests banned in California - but to be replaced by freakish brainwave measurement?
  • Community Newspapers - local radical rags SE1 and Leeds Other Paper
  • Legal self-help: commitals + thoughts on courts
  • Agreeing to disagree (anarchist movement)
  • Shoplifiting: A Guide For The Revolutionary Consumer
  • Ronan Bennett and Iris Mills interviewed about their recent arrests (Persons Unknown trial etc)
  • Crass - broadly positive introduction to anarchist punk band
  • Charles Shaar Murray - rock journalist interviewed
  • Politics and film
  • The Platform of the Organisation of Armchair Terrorists
  • Friends of Garbage (satire)
  • Contacts
  • Garish overprinted back page that includes some tips for disrupting meetings

Files

xtra-issue-3.pdf (30.15 MB)

Comments

Xtra! #4 1980

Issue 3 of Xtra! from 1980.

A compressed version of a scan made available by the comrades at Sparrows Nest, Nottingham.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 18, 2020

Contents:

  • Pigs Routed - Bristol riots
  • A despondent union member writes
  • letter from a far-right anti-car odd-bod
  • Strollin' - CND march contrasted with NF march and the anarchist disruption of the enthronement of an Archbishop
  • Wildcat strike by female workers at Chix sweet factory in Slough
  • Anti-Militarism in World War 1 and now
  • Why capitalist economics spell war
  • Fare-dodging on the London Underground
  • Towards A Revolutionary Intervention centrespread. Round up - anarchist bloc on TUC march, disruption of Miss Oxford beauty contest, anarchists and autonomists disrupt Paul Foot/Tony Benn/Tariq Ali snoozefest (including forging tickets)
  • Defence of Syndicalist Methods - history of anarchist movement in the UK, introducing Direct Action Movement
  • Unions and Race
  • Legal self-help - Bail: why you won't get it
  • Legalise McDonalds campaign (satire)
  • Censorship of films on TV
  • Contacts/events
  • Satirical piece describing mainstream political movements as pop groups
  • Review: Accidental Death of an Anarchist - "the worst play I have ever seen".

Files

xtra-issue-4.pdf (29.8 MB)

Comments

Xtra! #5 1980

5th issue of Xtra! from either late 1980.

A compressed version of the scan made available by the comrades at Sparrows Nest, Nottingham.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 18, 2020

Contents:

  • "You Are The Bosses!" - disruption of TUC "Day of Action" rally including leaflet entitled "Smash the unions and the left, Smash the bosses and the state, Proletarian Autonomy for the Social Revolution!" and a punch up.
  • A fare dodger writes
  • Aftermath of Bristol riots
  • Disclosure of information by firms - a two edged sword
  • May Day rally in Nottingham review
  • Legal self-help - resistance in prison
  • Attempted occupation of Torness nuclear reactor in Scotland
  • Disruption of the coronation of Queen Beatrix in the Netherlands
  • What do they mean by Monetarism, anyway?
  • Drugs: pros, cons and hash shortbread recipe
  • Time Out magazine and hip capitalists
  • Arts Council and elitism
  • Anarcha-feminism
  • A guide to CS gas
  • The revolutionary power of music?
  • Contacts
  • Classified ads
  • Worthing anarchists disrupt mayoral inauguration

Files

xtra-issue-5.pdf (28.08 MB)

Comments

Xtra! #6 1980

Issue 6 of Xtra!

Contents include: Resistance: Why The Struggle Has Already Started, Fire at Alexandra Palace (plus council corruption), fare dodging, gay pride, Boredom Weighting (satire of pay scales), tips on bewildering bank cashiers, Aberdeen anarchists disrupt official May Day celebrations, Oxford Anarchist Conference report, A Distribution set up, Women in Prison, small press reviews, contacts, back page poster/comic.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 18, 2020

Files

Xtra-06.pdf (10.48 MB)

Comments

Fozzie

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fozzie on July 23, 2020

Thanks to the comrade who donated the full scan of this issue, which has now been added.

R Totale

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by R Totale on July 24, 2020

On a minor historical/language note, interesting to see "SWerf" used as a term of hostility for SWPers (I think) in this. When I was young, PC meant police constable etc etc.

Resistance: Why The Struggle Has Already Started – A Sore Throat Somewhere in Hackney

An insurrectionary call to arms from the early 1980s. Article from Xtra! issue 6.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 21, 2021

Stumbling bleary-eyed into the 1980s a quick review of the political situation reveals a firmly entrenched, reactionary, monetarist government and a rapidly deteriorating economy. The state machine is becoming increasingly authoritarian, while the Labour Party, Trade Unions and Left have had the door slammed in their faces, leaving them helplessly bleating as the government implements its policies. Those very policies which were elaborated and presided over by the last government. The dreaded ‘cuts’.

But enough of this. We should by now have a comprehensive idea of what is going on. The point is, what are we going to do about it? Where do we go from here? We are not remotely interested in ‘kicking the Tories out’ Kicking the Tories maybe. We consider the Labour Party, Trade Unions and Left as deadly enemies. Just another pack of aspiring exploiters, bosses and police.

We are well acquainted with the fact that the working class in this country is the most politically backward in Europe. But this is applicable to the other classes too. Even more so, perhaps. The present government represents the ideological desires of these revolting middle classes. Despite reading and hearing about political and industrial violence, the really exceptional thing is that it is abysmally lacking. Look at the Grunwicks strike. Sure, there were hundreds arrested and injured, scores of mass pickets. But the whole contest was dictated by the police and unions. It is irrelevant that the whole sad strike was for union recognition, the point is that not once outside those factory gates did that particular struggle transcend legalism. Despite the fantasies of the Press and right-wing Tories.

At one point, through the sheer pressure of the crowds, a garden wall collapsed. The pickets passed the bricks overhead and gave, GAVE them to the very pigs who had been beating them up. But this is England, it’s not like France or Italy. Yet.

The result of the whole sorry episode is too well-known to elaborate here. It’s the same as any strike ‘won’ or ‘lost’. The system remains, the unions keep their grip on the working class. So far the Labour Party and unions have it all sewn up. They have succeeded in preventing the only thing that can take us far beyond the pitiful story so far. And that is class violence.

At the moment violence is dominated by the police and state - it’s on their terms. But this could be changing very soon. We don’t deny to a great extent the unions and Labour Party are manipulating a somewhat willing group of people. They couldn’t get away with it if the working class had a revolutionary proletarian consciousness. But as it hasn’t, the Labour Party and unions can pump out any amount of nationalist, legalistic garbage about our ‘constitutional, patriotic government’ (Jenkins) to the cheers of militant workers.

There is a world of difference between militants and revolutionaries. Sections of the British working class are very militant when it comes to defending their ‘rights’. There is, however, not even a tiny section of the class that has a clear revolutionary perspective, or anything approaching it.

The crisis is cutting deep into the actual structure of the working class. The economic situation and, to a growing extent, the new technology, are decimating the working class with redundancy and mass unemployment. The state has made no social preparations. Except, of course, to increase police numbers, repressive laws and the number of snoopers. Those thrown on the scrapheap can expect no aid or sympathy from the state. It is from these marginalised elements that we will draw our support.

The state has for some considerable time been making preparations for civil strife. I can only think the forces of law and order must be embarrassed at the lack of class violence. Whether it is the nuclear power question, strikes, any social issue (barring race), the state must be very pleased at the way in which they are fought. That is, in terms of submissive, non-violent, constitutionalism.

Without violent confrontation with the forces of the state, the working class will never break through the deadly, stultifying condition which enmeshes it today. Seventy years ago Sorel, despite all his other faults, understood that the class becomes decadent without class violence. Without a willingness to confront and attack capitalism physically, the state, authority, institutions, will continue to flourish. Which will mean the ever-increasing subordination of every individual not part of the ruling classes, to every facet of the system.

What about those who claim to be acting and fighting for the working class? The Labour Party and unions are 100% part and parcel of the capitalist system. In power they are exactly the same as any other government. In opposition they are pathetic. One cannot expect these organisations to fight on behalf of the working class.

These are, in fact, the police of the working class. They must be fought at every single level. We have no intention of struggling to assist these contemptible technocrats into the seats of power. Once installed they would proceed to unleash the full fury of the state on any group of workers which really wanted the system destroyed.

The same applies to the Left. These creeps, mostly the sons and daughters of the opulent, constitute themselves into so-called ‘vanguard parties' and verbally abuse the Labour Party and unions. But it’s really a smokescreen. They are their bastard offspring, so are only critical on an unrevolutionary plane. The function of the Left is to be militant, to appear to be revolutionary so as to attract people who are searching for a way to change this hateful system. But when it comes to the crunch they are out there touting for the Labour Party and unions. ‘Defend the unions’, ‘Vote Labour, keep out the Tories’. If by some chance one of these groups were catapulted into power... well a quick look at the history books and at present ‘workers’ states’ is lesson enough. We support the struggle of workers in these countries as we support the struggle of workers everywhere.

It is interesting to look at the composition of the Left. It is mostly middle-class. The section of the middle-class which tends to come into contact with the working class - teachers, social workers, probation officers - the very people used by the system as its social police. But if the membership of these ‘vanguards’ were exclusively plebian it would make not one iota of difference to us. Politics is what counts and their politics place them fairly and squarely in the camp of counter-revolution. The Left is the final safety valve of the system. It also represents an immediate threat, as people tend to see it as the genuine opposition. They little realise the answers lie in their own hands.

The Left’s main preoccupation at the moment is the recuperation of struggle into support for the return of the Labour Government and a defence of the unions against ‘Tory’ laws. Already they are marshalling the working class into meaningless one day strikes, demonstrations herded by hundreds of police. At these totally passive events the main topic of the speakers is how we should all troop out to the polling booths four years hence to vote Labour.

But one could write volumes about these people. We should look at the groups and ideas that are close to us, those that believe in class war, have a class analysis, and see the need for workers’ autonomy. First we have the ultra-Left, in the shape of World Revolution, which is Marxist. The positive thing about this organisation is its clear understanding and rejection of the Left and unions and its defence of class autonomy and class positions. All these positions are discussed in its publications. However negative points include its bolshevism (pre-1919 variety they claim) and the fact they still see the need for the state. Even if they do qualify this by saying power should be placed in the hands of the revolutionary workers’ councils.

As well as this, World Revolution has constituted itself into a party, ironic considering it would be hard pressed to raise a couple of dozen people for any event. Also ironic is the fact that most of its members are not working class and have no working class presence despite their class positions. Although they see the need for revolutionary intervention their own intervention consists merely of verbal opposition and the distribution of leaflets. An archaic, useless exercise — the present situation demands action.

Other ultra-left groups such as the Communist Workers’ Organisation are more authoritarian. They make no bones about the fact they would institute a dictatorship with its accompanying police force, prisons, and repression against sections of the class refusing to endorse the plans of the party. This clearly places them on the side of counterrevolution.

Next come the anarchists. Anarchism represents a definite revolutionary working class trend. It advocates smashing and abolishing the state and the decentralisation of power. It calls for the abolition of capitalism, alienation and for the total liberation of the individual. I do not have the time or space to talk about the historical anarchist movement. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject, most admittedly by liberal historians who distorted the truth. It cannot be said that anarchism has never fought for counter-revolutionary goals, but it does represent the only continually revolutionary mode of thought with any sort of mass following in the working class, unemployed and young. If not in this country, certainly in Europe. It is not scared to engage in violent confrontation with the forces of the state, against property and authority. But, being a diverse set of ideas, it contains certain ideologies which are counter-revolutionary.

Anarcho-syndicalism was at one time, the start of the century, a revolutionary creed. Its stress on class struggle, class autonomy class war and direct action are a case in point. However, today unionism of any form is counterrevolutionary. It is impossible to build any large-scale permanent organisation to combat capitalism, for it would be only a matter of time before it would be recuperated. All trade unionism is counter-revolutionary. If we encourage the working class to subscribe to it we are helping to spread confusion. Besides part of the struggle is against unionism in all its forms. And at the moment there is no demand from the working class for revolutionary unionism.

Of course that is not to say that at the moment the working class is crying out for autonomist organisation, far from it, in fact the extremities of alienation and the total estrangement of the working class from revolutionary proletarian ideas mean just the opposite is occurring. Only a fool would say otherwise. Many anarchists are not revolutionary at all, being nothing more than extreme liberals. Some are nothing more than leftists.

Anarcha-feminism is another good example. And I would like to discuss some of its implications. Being based on biological determinism, feminism negates class struggle to a war between the sexes. Men are crudely regarded as having a vested interest in the oppression of women. This means in essence that there should be class collaboration between women of all classes, against men. The anarcha— feminist magazine, Zero, (now defunct), by the time it had produced issue number two, had an article demanding that the original jail sentence imposed on rapists be implemented.

But why rely on the very institutions that daily crush us — the courts, law and prisons? What is wrong with direct action? Why not burn his car, beat him up or even paint in ten foot letters ‘A Rapist Lives Here!’ on his house? And the same applies on other levels. We must do things ourselves, outside the repressive, conventional framework. It is interesting that people like this should turn to bourgeois institutions - the very institutions we must utterly destroy. One of the reasons people like the Zeroids are incapable of confronting violence in society is because they have adopted a disarming ideology. They see aggressiveness as male, therefore bad. In fact aggression is an emotion, neutral, neither good nor bad, it just exists.

But this society knocks all emotions out of us that spell the possibility of resistance, turning them inwards or using them for its own ends. Aggressive emotions are actually something that we have to rediscover in ourselves. We have to be combative, and yes, I’ll say it, more violent, when it comes to confronting this death culture. If we ‘lower orders’ were more aggressive we might be in a better position to overthrow the system. Pushing garbage serves to disarm us from within - and all in the guise of anti-sexism.

Is it coincidence the people who peddle this passive attitude are mostly middle-class? That they never experience the daily violence done to us in schools, workplaces, dole queues, prisons, housing estates? Hence all this stuff about patriarchy. Do they think all men are tribal elders in some remote Indian Village? The only remote thing is their distance from the horror of everyday life.

We stand 100% against all forms of sexism, all forms of restraint on our bodies and minds by the state’s laws and morals. We think women need to be more aggressive, we are totally against the passive nonsense expounded by these self-proclaimed non-sexist men. All this fuss about sexist advertisements. We hate the WHOLE commodity spectacle, not just its particular abuses of women’s bodies. The whole set up is offensive. We don’t bother using a sliding scale to determine who is more oppressed - a young male, black, unemployed, or working woman. What counts is the destruction of the system, this present order. Sorry to spend so long on this subject, but it just happens to be ‘doing the rounds’ at the moment.

Some of us are anarchists, others are not, but it seems to me we work in the anarchist milieu more than anywhere else. We also draw the bulk of our support from this area. This is not to say we don’t heavily criticise various aspects of anarchism, we do. Still I would like to move on to disturbances that have happened in recent times.

I would like to talk about the political violence that has occurred. We condemn all nationalism, therefore not only do we condemn the IRA’s terrorism against the civil population, but more important I think, we reject their politics. The only thing that has really brought politics back to our terrain, the streets, has been the struggle against the NF. The streets of Lewisham, Bradford Birmingham and Southall have seen direct confrontation involving the NF, the police protecting them, the Left and the people under direct attack by Nazi thugs - young blacks and Asians. Despite their claims the Left, except on a couple of occasions has done everything to avoid confrontation. Their latest attempt at recuperation has been the formation of the Anti-Nazi League. It is quite interesting that the various factions of the Left should unite to defend ‘democracy’. Defending democracy means defending the status quo.

We have no interest whatever in defending any part of the system, in preserving the present state of affairs against a non-existent fascist menace. There is a degree of irony in the middle class Left fighting the plebian fascists. But we see tremendous liberating possibilities in these confrontations. Where else do we get the chance to strike back against the police? Some anarchists are against these confrontations. But what else do they suggest? Some suggest talking to individuals in the Front. That is OK we agree to that, we would even talk to individual leftists sometimes. However, when the Master Race decides to invade working class areas, with a huge phalanx of police protecting it, the only dialogue the marchers understand is that of the bricks and bottles we attack them with.

Some people want to ban their marches. But we don’t want the state to defend us against Nazi thugs. We know what their help consists of. We are the receiving end of it. The state is not frightened of the NF, it is frightened that the reaction against them might spill over into other issues. As indeed it has. These confrontations provide us with much needed practice for the future.

However the real possibilities of confrontation were shown at the first Notting Hill riot where the police were heavily defeated and where young blacks showed their contempt for this society by looting shops and burning police cars. In a way the NF marches and the Notting Hill confrontations could be regarded as set-piece battles.

But this April the Bristol riot, or semi-insurrection, again showed us the future in no uncertain terms. Again the most alienated sections of society; unemployed young blacks initiated and bore the brunt of the fighting. Well co-ordinated, the fighting forced the police to withdraw from the area and as the pigs pulled out the rioters looted the shops, taking the goods that society denies them.

Some whites joined in and it is even reported that a couple of old age pensioners wheeled a trolley of goods out of a gutted supermarket. As half a dozen police cars burned, the local bank went up in flames, burned by the very people who would never cross its threshold. Skinheads, the very people who would be marching with the NF in other circumstances, joined in on the side of the blacks. This proves that action is dialogue - all the liberal platitudes in the world make no difference. THIS is the start of a new form of communication. These actions, spearheaded by the marginal elements, could present a real menace to the existing order if they spread to the working class.

Because there is no revolutionary consciousness in the working class, or even in the marginal elements, we tend to draw our support from individuals. These individuals come from the low-paid sections of the working class, the unemployed, and students. Most of us commit various crimes to support our pitiful incomes Most revolutionaries tend to come from the middle-class because they have the time and the education. The rest of us are struggling day to day just to survive. The Left began its long march through the institutions ten years ago, many becoming teachers and lecturers. When we pass through it will be to wreck them. We must not be confused by the so-called autonomous movements. There are none.

The women’s movement is not autonomous, it is closely allied to and infiltrated by the Left and Labour Party. The much touted ‘Beyond the Fragments’1 proves that the women’s movement is extra-parliamentary, not anti-parliamentary. The women on the marches and in their campaigns and meetings do their work ‘outside’, while the ‘real’ work is done in the Houses of Parliament by Left-wing MPs. As if THEY had anything to offer us. Only the middle-class ever seems to benefit from these changes of law anyway. We are not fighting just to make life more cosy for these bastards. These people are living off our backs just as much as the Royal Family and the rich.

Our interventions, although we do distribute leaflets, we prefer to be physical whenever possible. We intervened in the ‘Debate of the Decade’2 , not in order to have a nice little chit chat with the middle-class trendies posing as revolutionaries within. We intervened to break it up, to confront the likes of Benn and Paul Foot. We were there to show our disapproval of leftism in more than esoteric terms. The vile Benn drew the brunt of our fury, coming out with gems such as ‘The last Labour Government saw a definite shift of power into the hands of the working class’. We exploded, and why not?

We demanded in no uncertain terms to know how many prisoners had been freed. How many public schools they had closed. Why they hadn’t even stopped the brain police - teachers - from brutalising kids in those prisons called schools. All they gave us was more police, more state control, heaped more shit on. us.

We could have rushed the platform, pushed aside the knot of ex-public schoolboys, but unfortunately we did not. We were still restricted in our actions, although we numbered three dozen and they about two and a half thousand, we had the upper hand. We were prepared to defend ourselves and we soon saw the stewards off. We made it clear we were not frightened of them (and we weren’t), but instead of wrecking the entire meeting we left because some of us were getting bored. There was no point in trying to convert lefties, they have vested interests, just as much as any Tory. After all they are our future leaders (or so they think).

These interventions are mostly for our benefit, to boost our confidence, to push ourselves to greater extremes, to attract people who are not deterred by political norms, who want actions not hot air. While we admit some of our interventions have been abortive, others haven’t. Like the time we took over the front of a big TUC march and when it ended busted up a meeting presided over by an ex-Prime Minister, fighting the stewards and leaving before the police came.

When future disturbances occur we will be there, as we have been in the past, fighting, burning banks, extending the action, attacking police stations, moving out into the middle-class areas, taking the battle into enemy territory. Even now on the fringes of marches, we break away, bricking shop windows, picking off isolated targets. We haven’t the numbers yet to engage in full confrontation, by ourselves, with the well-trained police. So we will continue our hit and run tactics, although we join any confrontation we think worth it. We will defend ourselves from any attacks by fascist OR leftist thugs, because don’t think the Left will put up with endless provocations. The closer we get to the mark, the harder it will become.

We prefer the small group structure where we can get to know and trust each other. We act in concord with likeminded individuals and groups, putting out the ‘buzz’ whenever something interesting appears. We pick and choose when we decide to initiate our actions. But we are finding it necessary to intervene more often, in greater force, and in every sphere - not just demos and meetings. We will spring surprise attacks on property, shopping centres, make ourselves felt on every level.

It’s not only for ourselves, but for all the alienated — like the young skinheads in the East End, who belong not with the NF and BM but with us. We are expanding and educating our minds by confronting the whole rotten fabric of this society, the ‘culture’, useless commodities, morals, laws, ‘politics’, which have nothing to offer us except increasing misery. We have nothing to lose, we won't be bought off or distracted by useless campaigns, which after all mean asking THEM not to be so nasty. The state and authority are ready, don’t think the riot shields at Lewisham appeared out of thin air. It’s up to us to be ready too.

Comments

Xtra! #7 1980

7th issue of Xtra! from late 1980 (mentions of Christmas etc).

A compressed version of a scan made available by the comrades at Sparrows Nest, Nottingham.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 18, 2020

Contents:

  • Council house sell offs - why not squat?
  • Letters
  • Labour leadership contest
  • Anarchist disruption of Trotskyist "Right To Work" rally outiside Conservative Party conference
  • Railton Road, Brixton
  • Backlash! - response to article in previous issue on various forms of resistance
  • Defending yourself in court
  • Squatting: Solving the housing crisis for the price of a crowbar
  • Fare dodging - a guard on the London Underground writes
  • Economics
  • Anarchist expropriation of Student Union funds
  • Scientific Polickology - review of "The Signs of Crime: A Field Manual For Police" by David Powis
  • Phone tapping and surveillance
  • Radical Laughter - folk clubs and alternative comedy
  • Contacts
  • Back page poster - Thatcher: Wanted For Terrorist Offences

Files

xtra-issue-7.pdf (28.9 MB)

Comments

Xtra! #8 1981

Eight issue of Xtra!

Contents include: Brixton riots, the trial of the Xtra! contributor who infiltrated the National Front's HQ Excalibur House, letters, the Social Democractic Party, Red Army Faction prisoners, snide review of autonomist event "After Marx April", riots in Zurich, review of a Police manual on how to search a house, working conditions at Trust House Forte hotels, Who Needs Maggie? (campaigns against her avoid criticising the system), schools (and leaving them), the middle class, responses to "Backlash" in previous issue, religion, back cover poster.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 17, 2020

Comments

Xtra! #9 1981

Issue 9 of Xtra! from 1981.

Contents include: Letters, Hampstead hit by waves of moderation (i.e. no riots), right to silence, Anarchist Youth Federation, Anarchists and Ireland, "Urban Collective Bargaining" - three and half pages of riot commentary, Xtra! banned from Collett's bookshop after a Sunday Express expose of a supposed "Street Guide To Terror" in a previous issue, Herstory/feminism, Prison Control Units, mental hospitals, Wapping Autonomy Centre opens, Basic First Aid for Injured Rioters, back page "Spot The Molotov" competition.

Submitted by Fozzie on July 26, 2020

Files

Xtra-09.pdf (14.35 MB)

Comments

Fozzie

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fozzie on July 27, 2020

Thanks again for to the comrade for scanning their copy of this issue.

Fozzie

3 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Fozzie on July 27, 2020

Worth mentioning that Ian Bone used the cover image of this issue to promote some Crass gigs in Wales in 1981. The anarcho-pacifists Crass were apparently unimpressed.

Logo! #99 1983

Cover of Logo! Headline "Provocative Slogan"

Logo! was a one-off produced by two members of the "structureless tyrants" who put together the Xtra! newspaper.

It includes some humourous reflections on Xtra! and the wider UK anarchist movement at the time.

Author
Submitted by Fozzie on May 24, 2022

PDF from the comrades at Sparrows Nest Archive, Nottingham.

Files

xtra99-logo.pdf (7.37 MB)

Comments

Steven.

1 year 10 months ago

Submitted by Steven. on May 24, 2022

This is really interesting, thanks. I see it mentions a couple of other publications I haven't heard of, and which I don't think we have in the library: Outta Control and Insurrection. The name Black Star rings a bell, but I don't think I have ever seen a real copy. Anyone know more about any of these?

Fozzie

1 year 10 months ago

Submitted by Fozzie on May 24, 2022

There was a specific thread for this sort of thing, back in the day ;-)

Steven.

1 year 10 months ago

Submitted by Steven. on May 24, 2022

This is great, thanks. The graphic design in Insurrection is brilliant!

R Totale

1 year 10 months ago

Submitted by R Totale on May 24, 2022

Yeah, I think Insurrection seems like it's historically notable for being the main(?) publication to introduce Bonnano and that to the English-speaking world (for better or worse), so I think there'd be solid grounds for including it, but then again I'm still nowhere near finishing my aim of archiving either the WSM or Love & Rage stuff, so not likely to take on anything else in the near future.

Steven.

1 year 10 months ago

Submitted by Steven. on May 24, 2022

Yeah totally understandable. I added Outta Control, because it was all helpfully in one PDF so nice and easy

Fozzie

1 year 10 months ago

Submitted by Fozzie on May 25, 2022

A bit more background on Logo! from Albert Meltzer's autobiography:

"Some of the early elements in Class War tarred anarchists with the Freedom Press brush assuming they were the same. One group* made a song about me “Hello Albert” — denouncing my “obsession with the past and the Spanish war which was long since over”, not realising or perhaps caring that my obsession (if it was that) was with the Resistance, then for the first time extending through Europe, of which they were quite unaware.

This was picked up from pseudo-situationists, who ran special one-off papers to denounce any and every resistance, one of which, Logo, edited by a Richard Parry and Mark Page, managed to disgust the Anarchy group when with others they were nearly fooled into a collective handling of an issue fingering people whom Parry & Co considered activists and therefore named “jokingly”, or hopefully, as prison fodder. Phil Ruff dumped the entire issue in a handy trash bin, somewhat to the dismay of those who felt he was failing to observe a proper adoration of the plaster saint Freedom of Speech whose cult lay an obligation on us to distribute for free a hostile paper."

*Anarchopunk band The Apostles who were indeed Class War adjacent in the early days. The song was actually called "Hello, Black Flag!".

Steven.

1 year 10 months ago

Submitted by Steven. on May 25, 2022

Ah so Parry was involved with this. Haven't heard of Page