Anarchists respond to the London riots - Solidarity Federation

I feel that it's a bit too defensive "we are not involved" blah blah...

why not saying that attacking property and instruments of state repression is something legitimate and something that revolutionnaries would have to do (not in the same ways as the rioters do maybe, but still it will have to be done).

condeming the bad some rioters do must be done, but it must also be said that some others can be approued. that there is also some good in the riot, that it shows the possibility to contest the police, to contest the rule of the bourgeoisie, that at time people can and do feel ready to gather for some struggling against it, etc...

Wouldn't the term 'democratic' be a bit misleading for people unfamiliar with anarchist conceptions of democracy? It looks a bit like you are advocating the parliamentary system, even if you're not.

@malva I would go even further. The term, democratic could refer some sort of majority based oppression, and anarchist using this term is more than misleading. It is harmful. What many understands among us, democracy is pure and simply the dictatorship of the proletariat based on communities. That is, it has nothing to do with democracy at all.

Regarding the statement, I woulprefer an action plan to the coming hours and days. If solfed could offer some gathering points to establish anarchist presence in north london, I would be happy to take part of it!

Amen.

I think most of us will know what was meant by the last sentence, but someone not overtly familiar with SF and libertarian communism may think it means a parliamentry road to social change.

The London rebellion is a rebellion against the commodity, against the world of the commodity in which worker-consumers are hierarchically subordinated to commodity standards. Like the young delinquents of all the advanced countries, but more radically because they are part of a class without a future, a sector of the proletariat unable to believe in any significant chance of integration or promotion, the London youth take modern capitalist propaganda, its publicity of abundance, literally. They want to possess now all the objects shown and abstractly accessible, because they want to use them. In this way they are challenging their exchange-value, the commodity reality which molds them and marshals them to its own ends, and which has preselected everything. Through theft and gift they rediscover a use that immediately refutes the oppressive rationality of the commodity, revealing its relations and even its production to be arbitrary and unnecessary. The looting of the London districts was the most direct realization of the distorted principle: “To each according to their false needs” — needs determined and produced by the economic system which the very act of looting rejects. But once the vaunted abundance is taken at face value and directly seized, instead of being eternally pursued in the rat-race of alienated labor and increasing unmet social needs, real desires begin to be expressed in festive celebration, in playful self-assertion, in the potlatch of destruction. People who destroy commodities show their human superiority over commodities. They stop submitting to the arbitrary forms that distortedly reflect their real needs. The flames of London consummated the system of consumption. The theft of large Plasma TVs by people with no electricity, or with their electricity cut off, is the best image of the lie of affluence transformed into a truth in play. Once it is no longer bought, the commodity lies open to criticism and alteration, whatever particular form it may take. Only when it is paid for with money is it respected as an admirable fetish, as a symbol of status within the world of survival.

Looting is a natural response to the unnatural and inhuman society of commodity abundance. It instantly undermines the commodity as such, and it also exposes what the commodity ultimately implies: the army, the police and the other specialized detachments of the state’s monopoly of armed violence. What is a policeman? He is the active servant of the commodity, the man in complete submission to the commodity, whose job it is to ensure that a given product of human labor remains a commodity, with the magical property of having to be paid for, instead of becoming a mere television or a game console — a passive, inanimate object, subject to anyone who comes along to make use of it. In rejecting the humiliation of being subject to police, the youth are at the same time rejecting the humiliation of being subject to commodities. The London youth, having no future in market terms, grasped another quality of the present.

That's nice and everything, but they're burning down people's homes and private possessions like their cars. I don't care what you happen to think of private owned cars, but some people do rely on their transport to put food on the table. Of course if you've lost your home over the past few nights, this is not such a big concern...

This kind of thing is terrifying to the innocents caught up in it and does *nothing* to strengthen our position.

This has been picked up by the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/09/london-riots-day-four-live-blog#block-94

Looks like the traffic has brought the Solfed site down.

Looks like the traffic has brought the Solfed site down.

yes. With all the anarchy this year we need to get a new server.....

no1

Looks like the traffic has brought the Solfed site down.

yes. With all the anarchy this year we need to get a new server.....

Come on, someone direct traffic to a static text file file with a statement! People won't come later when the severs are up.

For fuck's sake! What is this? This is a collective outpouring of rage, that is, yes ucontrolled and wild. The criticism should lie with the ultra-left and anarchist organisers for doing a terrible job organising in these communities and direct and channel this anger.

A low level civil war occurs in working class communities across the country every day. People are burgled, mugged, attacked. This is sickening and tragic but for you to abandom them ('deserve no support...') like the labour party and other faux left wingers just because this has been thrown in your face by the media is outrageous.

You usually have a good line and thoughtful comments. But this piece shows you've been spooked like the rest of the spineless left.

You should show support to both the rioters AND working people. Here's a better account doing the rounds on twitter http://anticutsspace.wordpress.com/

I think this is a good statement - the only thing I can think I would change would be the reference to banding together to defend our homes and communities, to say that this could equally mean against antisocial criminals or against the police.

http://hackneyunites.blogspot.com/2011/08/message-to-youth-of-hackney.html
Not sure if I entirely agree with it.
I think the SolFed statement is good, I'm thinking of forwarding it to some people who've completely written off everyone on the streets of Tottenham as a criminal.

This is the biggest load of cobblers Ive read in a long while. I was working for the labour party from the age of 3, posting leaflets with my parents. Socialists would rather vote Tori than 'condone' in any shape or form what is going on, on the streets of the UK. Look at the generations that fought in the wars.....no bleating and feeling sorry for themselves....they got on with it.
My parents would do any job that paid money...dustman, cleaner, nothing was below thier dignity...dignity was paying their way. I work with the unemployed. Where I live there are a lot of jobs, none which suit the people I work with who are apparently expecting to have an office, secretary with no qualifications...no education...well guess what? if you dont have an education life is hard...not too hard if you sit on your but and decry every government....People in third world countries do way less bleating and complaining than the often obese, lazy and non working element of society out there that expects a job, expects everyone to run around...provide them with new kitchens and bathrooms in their social housing...well guess what....go get a job...get off your fat bums and work. As a true socialist I would wash these 'rioter' off the streets with water canon....tazar the ones left standing and when they wake up tomorrow...they would find themselves in the army...in Afganistan...there they can find out that the other side fights back. They would also not collect their pay till full restituion is made to the shopkeepers and homeowners who these little scroats have burned out. The is human flotsam and jetsam and not worth anything till they wise up and realise its what you can give not what you can take that makes society work!

Admin edit - republished by popular demand

can this be taken onto a forum topic? it's bleeding hard to read as a library piece. :|

plasmatelly, feel free to start one and put up a link to the original piece if it's easier on the eyes

The fact Labour party activists like Sologne come out with such reactionary drivel is a good part of why proles are rioting. Thinly-veiled class hatred. P.S. Where is this land of plenty where there's loads of jobs? Last time I checked claimants outnumber vacancies by 5:1 nationally, and far worse in the places rioting's happening. And fwiw 'people in the third world' do shitloads of rioting, strikes, squatting and occupations, but they're about as visible to your average Labour party activist as those on London estates.

http://selfactivity.tumblr.com/post/8680348977/quick-thoughts-on-london-riots

juan contaz' thoughts

SO; WHO DID THE MOST HARM YESTERDAY ?
A few hundred poor rioters who looted and wrecked buildings amounting to a few £Million because they are dissafected with a system that allows police to get away with murdering civillians; or is it the handful of wealthy capitalists who wiped £46,000,000,000 (that's right 46 BILLION) off the markets because they value personal wealth over humanity?

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY

emergency demonstration against the cuts which caused the riots. today (wednesday 10th) 6.30pm from the anchor, deptford high street, to lewisham town hall, catford.

From a street assembly in Deptford.

Whilst the Metropolitan Police initially claimed Mark Duggan was armed and opened fire on them, they have since retracted the statement and there is no evidence to support the initial claim.
And what of the other thousands of unarmed civillians who died at the hands of the police without a single officer being reprimanded. Here's a short list to jog the fickle memories; Jean Charles De Menzes - unarmed man killed on a his way to work on a crowded tube train at Stockwell; Blair Peach - murdered by a sergeant in the notorious SPG; Ian Tomlinson - peacefully on his way home from work but struck down and killed by a specialust riot officer; Cynthia Garret - unexplained death in her own home at the hands of police - this sparked the original Broadwater Farm riots in 1985; then there's Liddel Towers, Joy Gardner, Roger Sylvester, or haow about the 96 innocent and unarmed people who died at Hillsborough football ground through crass incompetence of senior police offiecrs etc. etc - but not a single reprimand against the officers involved -they all retire with golden handshakes.

And that's not even including those who have died at the hands of 'the establishment' - have you forgotten already the unarmed and widely respected Dr David Kelly - his only crime was to tell the truth and embarras a lieing prime minister. We are told that the streets of London would tonight be patrolled by 16,000 police officers; in my mind that means there are 16,000 dangerous killers on the streets of our capital city tonight.

I remeber a time when unintelligent, violent men with shaven heads were called skinheads; now we call them police officers.

I don't like this statement. It seems that SolFed are so concerned about the image of anarchism and your organisation and have been that they've failed to support the totally legitimate and mass proletarian shopping expedition that has been going on. You seem to be like most leftists when direct action occurs, 'we understand it, but we don't condone it.'

After all, the mass looting by english proles is a limited form of communist distribution in action, but I guess for many anarchists their support for communism is fairly wafer thin. I'd always support proles actually practicing a limited form of communism during riots, so they can freely take back what has been taken from them over their lives. It's a (albeit limited and contradictory and consumerist) form of class revenge, a form of expropriation. Sure it's messy, and Sol Fed are right to condemn the anti working class violence and the burning of homes and cars of working class people. But there are also positive elements in the riots, namely the looting.

Rob Ray

So there should be no shock that people living lives of poverty and violence have at last gone to war. It should be no shock that people are looting plasma screen TVs that will pay for a couple of months' rent and leaving books they can't sell on the shelves. For many, this is the only form of economic redistribution they will see in the coming years as they continue a fruitless search for jobs.

Much has been made of the fact that the rioters were attacking “their own communities.” But riots don't occur within a social vacuum. Riots in the eighties tended to be directed in a more targeted way; avoiding innocents and focusing on targets more representative of class and race oppression: police, police stations, and shops. What's happened since the eighties? Consecutive governments have gone to great lengths to destroy any sort of notion of working class solidarity and identity. Is it any surprise, then, that these rioters turn on other members of our class?

This reads to me weird. The riots to me look like class riots. Yet you're claiming that the riots are an example of disintegration and decomposition and a lack of solidarity and identity amongst the working class? Huh? The rioters showed a tremendous degree of solidarity in looting shops and redistributing the goods therein. The mass looting is an example of working class attack, not retreat.

And is it right to claim that only young people from estates are involved? Surely other have participated in the rioting and looting. I heard reports that mothers etc were involved.

Translation into German at the FAU website

That's nice and everything, but they're burning down people's homes and private possessions like their cars. I don't care what you happen to think of private owned cars, but some people do rely on their transport to put food on the table. Of course if you've lost your home over the past few nights, this is not such a big concern...

This kind of thing is terrifying to the innocents caught up in it and does *nothing* to strengthen our position.

yes we must feel concerned by people losing their house or cars, fearing of being attacked, etc..

but also yes the riots in a way strengthen our position. no revolution without revolt, without people having the guts to face the police.

often people object to revolutionnaries that people are too passive, to afraid, not sufficiently revolted, etc...

ritots clearly shows different. it clearly shows that people can and do revolt.

then, our responsibility to show them how to do it in more conscious and efficient way.

I'd argue that it's far more a sign you've lost your head if you're running around calling people who burn out homes heroes.

so all the rioters are burning homes?

so they're all "criminal elements"?

aren't you here talking about the rioters exactly in the same way the media and the government do?

yes we must say that those who burn homes are not right. but that must not restraint us to say that the rioters that are not burning homes are right and that we are on their side against this fucked up society.

haven't you better thing to say about the riot than "burning homes is bad"?

or maybe people are right to revolt only if they follow an anarchist guidebook?

I don't like this statement. It seems that SolFed are so concerned about the image of anarchism and your organisation and have been that they've failed to support the totally legitimate and mass proletarian shopping expedition that has been going on. You seem to be like most leftists when direct action occurs, 'we understand it, but we don't condone it.'

After all, the mass looting by english proles is a limited form of communist distribution in action, but I guess for many anarchists their support for communism is fairly wafer thin. I'd always support proles actually practicing a limited form of communism during riots, so they can freely take back what has been taken from them over their lives. It's a (albeit limited and contradictory and consumerist) form of class revenge, a form of expropriation. Sure it's messy, and Sol Fed are right to condemn the anti working class violence and the burning of homes and cars of working class people. But there are also positive elements in the riots, namely the looting.

I do feel the same way

If it reads weird to you the problem is you. He didn't say they weren't class riots per se, he was pointing out that the riots lacked the same degree of political direction as those in the eighties, something far from shocking when one looks at the decompositon and atomisation of the working class after wave after wave of anti working class legislation and social policies quite deliberately aimed at fracturing the working class eg the rise of the much discussed "underclass", those who are by and large excluded or as Endnotes put it "exists now only to be managed: segregated into prisons, marginalised in ghettos and camps, disciplined by the police, and annihilated by war".

To ignore these factors in a bid to paint oneself more communist than thou in an unthinking celebration of massively contradictory events as these have been is idiotic and political counterproductive, replacing sloganeering and prefab cheerleading for an actual class analysis.

yes the class is fractured, contradictory, etc...

surprise surprise. for a large part it's always been this way.

anyway we have to do with the class as it is not as we like it to be.

remember what Marx said it's not because proletarians are gods, etc...

if we want to abolish our class situation it's because it's fucked up. and that's also because its fucked up that we expect people to feel the same.

the neither condone or condemn line about the looting is awful, it's what I'd expect from Sinn Fein twenty years ago not an avowedly revolutionary and communist organisation. The looting of major stores is not simply to be condoned, like it needs an excuse, it is to be celebrated albeit not fetishised or overplayed, it is primarily an issue of tactics not ethics and so the neither condone or condemn line is just liberal wavering. It also sits odd with the previous bit about looting being the only form of wealth redistribution people have seen in decades.

I'm with Revol on this...

Same here.

Comunicado en espanol

Los Anarquistas de Solidarity Federation responden a los disturbios de Londres

Con los medios de comunicación culpando a la "anarquía" de la violencia que se desarrolla en Inglaterra, Solidarity Federation de Londres ha lanzado la siguiente declaración como respuesta de una organización anarquista activa en la capital inglesa.

En los últimos días, los disturbios han causado daños significativos a las partes de Londres, para escaparates, casas y automóviles. A la izquierda, oímos el grito siempre presente que la pobreza ha provocado esto. A la derecha, que gángsters y los elementos anti-sociales se están aprovechando de la tragedia. Ambas cosas son ciertas. Los saqueos y disturbios vistos en los días pasados es un fenómeno complejo y contiene muchas corrientes.

No es una casualidad que los disturbios estén ocurriendo ahora, cuando las redes de apoyo a los desfavorecidos de Gran Bretaña se desmoronan y las personas son abandonadas en un abismo, golpeadas al caer por las porras de la policía. Pero no debe haber excusas para la quema de casas, aterrorizar a la gente de la clase trabajadora. Quienquiera que haya hecho tales cosas no deben ser apoyadas de ninguna manera.

La furia de los Estados es lo que es: fea y sin control. Pero no imprevisible. Gran Bretaña ha escondido sus problemas sociales desde hace décadas, acorralados con un piquete brutal de hombres armados. Crecer en los Estados a menudo significa que nunca se escapará de ellos, a menos que sea en la parte trasera de una camioneta de la policía. En la década de 1980, estos mismos problemas condujeron a Toxteth –disturbios ocurridos en Liverpool por parte de la comunidad de color y la policía-. En los años 90, contribuyó a los disturbios Poll Tax. Y ahora los tenemos de nuevo, porque los problemas no sólo siguen ahí: están empeorando.

El acoso policial y la brutalidad son parte de la vida cotidiana en todo el Reino Unido. Los sistemas de beneficios sociales se han deteriorado y eliminado. Las rentas aumentan y los puestos de trabajo patrocinados por el Estado utilizados para traer el dinero en la zona se están reduciendo en nombre de la transformación hacia una “gran sociedad de roles”. La gente que siempre ha tenido muy poco ahora no tienen nada. Nada que perder.

Y el propio papel de los medios de comunicación no debe ser disminuido. En todos los discursos sobre la "protesta pacífica" que precedió a los acontecimientos en Tottenham, los medios de comunicación no hubieran tocado la historia si todo lo que sucedió fue una vigilia frente a una comisaría de policía. La violencia policial y las protestas en contra de ella pasan todo el tiempo. Es sólo cuando la otra parte responde con la violencia (contra blancos legítimos o no) es que los medios de comunicación sienten la necesidad de no dar ningún tipo de cobertura.

Así que no debería haber ningún asombro porque las personas que viven una vida de pobreza y violencia hayan llegado, por fin a la guerra. No debe ser ninguna sorpresa que las personas están saqueando los televisores con pantalla de plasma que va a pagar por un par de meses de alquiler y dejar libros que no pueden vender en los estantes. Para muchos, esta es la única forma de redistribución económica que se verá en los próximos años a medida que continúan la búsqueda infructuosa de empleo.

Mucho se ha hablado del hecho de que los manifestantes estaban atacando "sus propias comunidades." Pero los disturbios no ocurren en un vacío social. Los disturbios en los años ochenta tendieron a ser dirigidos de una manera más específica, evitando inocentes y centrarse en objetivos más representativos de la opresión de clase y raza: la policía, estaciones de policía, y las tiendas. ¿Qué ha ocurrido desde los años ochenta? Los sucesivos gobiernos han hecho todo lo posible para destruir cualquier tipo de idea de trabajar la solidaridad de clase e identidad. No es de extrañar, entonces, que estos manifestantes combatan a su vez a otros miembros de su propia clase.

La Federación de solidaridad se basa en la resistencia a través de la lucha laboral. Nosotros no estamos involucrados en el saqueo y la diferencia de las reacciones de la derecha, o incluso los comentaristas simpático-pero-condenatoria de la izquierda, no vamos a condenar o condonar los que no saben cómo devolverse parte de la riqueza que se les ha negado durante toda su vida.

Sin embargo, como revolucionarios, no podemos permitir que los ataques a las personas que trabajan, a los inocentes. Quemando las tiendas con viviendas por encima de ellos, el transporte de las personas, asaltos y similares son un ataque a nuestra propia clase y debe ser resistido con tanta fuerza como cualquier otra política de austeridad impuesta por el gobierno, a las alza de precios de los propietarios, a la intención de los jefes de robarse el fruto de nuestro trabajo. Esta noche y durante todo el tiempo que sea necesario, la gente debe unirse para defenderse cuando este tipo de violencia amenaza hogares y comunidades.

Creemos que la ira legítima de los manifestantes puede ser mucho más potente si se dirige de manera colectiva, democrática y no busca victimizar a otros trabajadores, sino para crear un mundo libre de la explotación y la desigualdad inherente al capitalismo.

Solidarity Federation – Londres
09.08.2011

Even as far away as Adelaide, South Australia the front page reads "London descends into anarchy". They could at least have the wit to say "anarchy in the UK".

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/before-and-after-anarchy/story-e6frea6u-1226112568609

Very good statement SolFed. Just curious, how quickly was it written and was there any process to it beyond one person writing it and circulating a draft? I ask because I'm impressed that you lot got it out so fast, especially when it's such a good statement.

@ROB RAY

You deliberately misrepresent my comments. I called no-one a hero. You know that quite well but are looking to smear my view.

Its saddening to see your political argument has come down to defence by smear linked to personal tragedies of burnt homes to make the argument emotive. (i repeat, lest you do it again, homes burnt down is a deeply saddening tragedy!!!)

I don't see the point in continuing, but am disappointed that you are falling into gaping traps of focussing on personal tragedies to ramp up the pressure on the 'fightback' as Cameron calls it

You are leaving space wide open for the rioters and working class youths of this country generally from now on to be persecuted as 'rats' 'scum' others, not wanted in our community. You may not think that the lumpenproletariat has revolutionary potential but i didn;t think you'd abandon them to their fate so swiftly.

piter

the neither condone or condemn line about the looting is awful, it's what I'd expect from Sinn Fein twenty years ago not an avowedly revolutionary and communist organisation. The looting of major stores is not simply to be condoned, like it needs an excuse, it is to be celebrated albeit not fetishised or overplayed, it is primarily an issue of tactics not ethics and so the neither condone or condemn line is just liberal wavering. It also sits odd with the previous bit about looting being the only form of wealth redistribution people have seen in decades.

I'm with Revol on this...

I didn't spot that before - I thought it just said they didn't condemn it. I think we should definitely condone it - it is working class people taking what we desire from those who have exploited others. It is completely different from any of the

What i found interesting on was the reasons given for looting, and running amok.
whenever any of the looters where pressed as to why they where looting, after the initial "getting free stuff", they gave a real insight into the minds of our young.

"We are getting our tax back", " we are letting the police know who owns the street", "telling the government we can do what we want",

but this wasn't the response of uni students, this was the reply of 15-16 year old black, white and asian youth living in places like hackney and tottenham.

It seems that our young, actually get it. They may not have been able to use some social political language, but they definately got it. "whose streets, our streets" after years of abuse by the police state, years of police unaccountability. Years of Government policy designed to keep them on the poverty level as the underclass of society, struggling to make ends meet, whilst the cooperations swallow up the resources of the people.
They Get it

Whereas depressingly Our middle class have become the "house n****" and where busy calling for the army, rubber bullets, benefits to be cut and all they looters to be shot.
What the Rioters Must Demand

admin: offensive word removed, please do not use words like that here

Nate

Very good statement SolFed. Just curious, how quickly was it written and was there any process to it beyond one person writing it and circulating a draft? I ask because I'm impressed that you lot got it out so fast, especially when it's such a good statement.

Well, a day of internal discussions went into us realising a statement was in order (mostly on SF's forums). Then two of us--independently of each other but at the same time--each wrote a statement which we put onto the forums. We had some feedback and then combined the two statements. This was done with the input of those on the forums as well as posting it up on the NLSF email list.

We should also note this comes out of kind of 'culture' of writing statements, something we do fairly often. We try to do them as democratically as possible, consciously seeking to achieve a go-ahead from over half the members of the Local (and then allowing other Locals to sign onto the statement in their own time).

However, we also recognize that sometime time is short and we kind of allow our Local to release statements without reaching the majority threshold. We have very tight politics and we've discussed internally that we're okay with this process, so it's worked out well so far. That said, we did discuss this process at our meeting last night and it was decided that if a statement is released that the group rejects, those who wrote it will be expected not to write any further statements unless (1) they explicitly achieve majority approval and (2) they've been active in the Local for a further number of months and can more correctly gauge the group's politics.

Phew!

revol68

If it reads weird to you the problem is you. He didn't say they weren't class riots per se, he was pointing out that the riots lacked the same degree of political direction as those in the eighties, something far from shocking when one looks at the decompositon and atomisation of the working class after wave after wave of anti working class legislation and social policies quite deliberately aimed at fracturing the working class eg the rise of the much discussed "underclass", those who are by and large excluded or as Endnotes put it "exists now only to be managed: segregated into prisons, marginalised in ghettos and camps, disciplined by the police, and annihilated by war".

To ignore these factors in a bid to paint oneself more communist than thou in an unthinking celebration of massively contradictory events as these have been is idiotic and political counterproductive, replacing sloganeering and prefab cheerleading for an actual class analysis.

Ignoring your over the top hyperbole, I think you're misinterpreting their statement. Nth London Solfed say: "Riots in the eighties tended to be directed in a more targeted way; avoiding innocents and focusing on targets more representative of class and race oppression: police, police stations, and shops." So they're claiming that the riots aren't very political, they are fundamentally anti-working class, they lack targetting police, police stations and shops. Huh? In fact, from what I have seen, the rioters did attack police, and then run away when they could, and most of their activity seemed to be attacking and looting shops rather than mugging and burning other working class people and their homes. Nth london solfed are only focussing on the worst of the riots, the mugging and burning of homes etc, and overlooking the other elements. Then solfed claim: 'consecutive governments have gone to great lengths to destroy any sort of notion of working class solidarity and identity. Is it any surprise, then, that these rioters turn on other members of our class?' Huh? (again) Again, they are claiming that the riots were all about lack of class solidarity and rioters turning on other working class people. But the riots were not all about rioters beating up other workers. The practice of looting is a mass thing or else it wont succeed. The rioters showed tremendous class solidarity and self-organisation amongst themselves to do prole shopping.

If i'm cheerleading the looting aspect of the riots, then I'm over reacting against their one-sided portrayal of the riots and their silly worry about the image of anarchism when there was a major prole revolt going on, with all its messiness, nastiness and so on. (I know very well the looting is limited and contradictory and deserving of critque in itself, but still, it is something to be built upon rather than dismissed). As others have said, SolFed are also sneering in their portrayal of the lumpenproletariat, and saying that real political activity occurs in workplaces and the like (ie. from waged workers). Besides, from what I have heard, many waged workers did participate in the riots, and to see it as only a lumpen thing is misleading.

I concur with muslimanarchist, these people could not articulate what they were doing in bourgeois rhetoric, but they were certainly doing something political.

From a rightist perspective, this is anarchism, as lawlessness is seen to cause criminality and the collapse of social norms. Only from an anarchist perspective is this not seen as anarchism, because they suggest removing state strictures (lawlessness) will lead to utopian behaviours as suggested by primitive collective societies where norms are implemented without the control of the state. The rightists would say this is exactly an apology and an attempt at legitimisation for the kind of gang culture, vigillantism, and anti-establishment disrespect that caused this mess and is intrinsically anti-social.

Given this, it seems to me that you might as well admit you embrace this youth revolution. That it might collapse the economy or burn people out of their homes is just a draw back to anarchism, which as anarchists, you think is acceptable. I don't think it is acceptable, but I do think it is anarchy.

To be honest, I watched 'The Book of Eli' the other week, and I could not imagine humanity behaving so badly. After the last week, I am no longer so certain. It re-enforces my view that actually society needs Animism and the contemplation of the Greater Self to stop us engaging in self-destructive behaviours. This lack of harmony, not corporate capitalism, is the real problem.

oh great, a right-wing 'animist', yes thats what society really needs, a great big right wing cuddly harmonious earth spirit....

Revol's comment that this statement from solfed falls into liberal line is valid. I think we should accept the class nature of the events in london (as solfed also does). And class struggle can not be measured according to moral standarts and/or a certain reason. You just have to take your side. (this can be intellectual, physical, artistic etc..)

However by neither condemning or condoning it this statement by solfed fails to say much about "an anarchist organization's response to the events happening in London". And in my opinion by failing to say anything and take side, it doesn't challenge "normalized" ideas of mainstream media, (like rioters are looters thiefs, property damage is bad, looting is worse, etc...)

So basically "neither this not that approach" is a powerless response, it only signifies that "this was not the struggle we wanted and anticipated, however we are proud activist so we can not say this struggle is bad." in other words "we have nothing to say on what to do", (but we can explain socio-historical conditions that created this events) We can only say you should protect your community, (for example like Turkish jewelry stores. [most of the media in Turkey only mentions the riots in Londo from a perspective of how Turkish shop owners protect their properties with knives and clubs like "ottoman heroes")

What is particularly sad (for me) about such "non-statement" is that it was (I don't konw why) is translated to turkish and published in a leftist newspaper. So I feel bad about such statement is translated as the response of anarchists to events.

(by the way I couldn't see this on libcom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzDQCT0AJcw
I think what he gives is a real "response" )

revol68

As others have said, SolFed are also sneering in their portrayal of the lumpenproletariat, and saying that real political activity occurs in workplaces

I think you're reading far too much into it. There's a single reference to SolFed being "based in resistance through workplace struggle" (which isn't even that accurate fwiw), but there's also plenty of time spent arguing how riots can be targeted and class conscious and how these ones have been less so than in the 80s (fwiw i don't know if this is is true, wasn't PC Blakelock killed escorting firefighters to a shop fire in a residential block?), but nevertheless looting is "the only form of economic redistribution they will see in the coming years". Hardly sneering and hardly narrow workerism.

Steven.

I didn't spot that before - I thought it just said they didn't condemn it. I think we should definitely condone it - it is working class people taking what we desire from those who have exploited others.

while i'm inclined to agree, i assume the thinking behind this is to resist the establishment framing of the debate, which is obsessively demanding condemnation or condoning with no nuance allowed (e.g. see Darcus Howe being basically accused of rioting on the BBC because he wasn't surprised it had happened, or anyone with any explanation being dismissed as an apologist for home burning to be rounded up in a stadium). I think it's vital to resist that framing, since 'the riots' and even looting are not singular uniform phenomena but complex and contradictory, with class content alongside anti-social and anti-working class elements (which of course the press is focussing on, and probably aren't as widespread as we're lead to believe).

also there's the issue two people were trying to stay within a not clearly specified mandate, so they couldn't unilaterally take a position that wasn't agreed, and on which there's considerable debate. personally i think there's plenty of room for discussion over the looting from 'proles directly asserting their needs that should be supported' through to 'consumerism taken too seriously that shows the grip of individualist values on workers'. that's probably a thread worth starting as the dust settles and we get a better idea of what happened, but this wasn't attempting to be a nuanced reading of the jouissance of looting, but to get out a class struggle anarchist perspective on developing events while there was possibly a window to influence the debate (and of course practical efforts to organise things like the Deptford Assembly to pre-empt a reactionary backlash from people fearing for their homes etc).

hi comrades,
This statement's circulated a lot among folk I know in the UK, most really like it, I've seen just a few negative responses to it, focusing on that condemn/condone bit. JK does a great job here of answering that.
I'm sure y'all are super busy but if anyone has time to speculate about what you think is coming next after the rioting subsides, I'd be interested. I agree w/ the statement and with JK, but/and I'm also concerned about a backlash after. These things are contradictory, this could give new life to a lot of cool stuff while also touching off some awful. A friend told me that after the 1999 WTO protests - which really turned around the US left and revitalized it - the Seattle police for a few years busted heads really aggressively and it became raelly hard for leftists to operate publicly. I believe a similar dynamic went on in Canada much more recently. I realize that a lot of the rioting areas have been at brutal policing already, I just can't think of a better analogy. I'm also thinking of something I vaguely rememebr reading about or by the EDL, that part of their strategy was to commit acts which might provoke muslim youth and others into responses which the EDL can then use to help demonize those groups. I don't know if that's true, but I think it speaks to the part of the NLSF statement and JK's remarkers about how the events have been complex/conradictory. I think that part of what I liked best in the statement is the same thing that a few folk I know disliked, which is that NLSF has opinions about what folk should and shouldn't do, in a way I think the statement is suggesting a bit of working class self-discipline in revolt.

Just to say, the line about "workplace struggle" was something we'd correct again in the future. It should have said "workplace and community struggles", but I really don't think it's a major issues, only a slight, tiny inconsequential mistake.

Tourism,

Anarchism doesn't oppose rules, order, or organization. We just believe rules should be made by the people who have to follow them, not by a state built upon (as all states are) protecting the interest of a ruling class.

Only from an anarchist perspective is this not seen as anarchism

Yeah, because you wouldn't want to judge an idea by the words, philosophy, and actions of its adherents. :roll: ...Cause it's not like those in power haven't spent the past 150 years doing their damndest to ensure they've misrepresented and maligned anarchism in the media and public discourse

In French:

----------------

La Position de la North London Solfed à Propos des Emeutes de Londres.

Alors que dans les médias les dénonciations volent à tous vents, accusant «d'anarchie» les violentes émeutes qui se sont déroulées à Londres et à travers l'Angleterre, la North London Solidarity Federation (Fédération de Solidarité de Londres-Nord), en tant qu’organisation anarchiste active dans la capitale, a cru approprié de formuler une réponse.

Au cours des derniers jours, des émeutes ont causé des dommages importants dans plusieurs quartiers de Londres. Des devantures de magasins, des maisons et des véhicules ont été incendiés. La gauche, comme à l’habitude, désigne la pauvreté comme cause principale des émeutes. La droite insiste que les gangsters et les éléments antisociaux profitent de la tragédie. Tous deux ont raison. Les pillages et les émeutes des derniers jours sont un phénomène complexe et accusent de nombreuses dimensions.

Ce n'est pas un hasard si ces émeutes se produisent maintenant: au moment où le gouvernement démantèle les filets de sécurité de l’Etat providence dédiés aux plus démunis, les laissant tomber dans l'abîme, sous les coups de matraques de la police métropolitaine. Mais cela n’excuse ni la mise à feux de maisons, ni la victimisation de membres des classes populaires. Ceux qui commettent de tels actes n’ont aucune cause pour les soutenir.

La fureur des cités est ce qu'elle est -- hideuse et sauvage -- mais elle n’était d’aucune manière imprévisible. Le Royaume-Uni dissimule ses problèmes sociaux depuis des décennies, les contenant derrière un rideau de fer policier. Le plus souvent, grandir dans une cité veut dire ne jamais la quitter, sauf à l'arrière d'un fourgon de police. Dans les années 1980, ces mêmes problèmes sociaux ont mené aux émeutes de Toxteth. Dans les années 90, ils ont contribué aux émeutes anti-Poll Tax (impôt local par tête). Aujourd’hui, ces mêmes problèmes sont non-seulement toujours avec nous, ils s'aggravent, et les émeutes sont de retour.

Le harcèlement et la brutalité de la police sont le pain quotidien des jeunes des cités partout en Grande-Bretagne. Le gouvernement actuel s’acharne à éroder et retrancher un système d’aides aux plus démunis qui déjà leur permettait à peine de survivre. Dans le quartier de Hackney, les travailleurs sociaux, qui pour beaucoup avaient eux-mêmes grandi et vécu dans les cités, étaient ainsi munis d’une connaissance intime du terrain, et étaient donc les plus à mêmes d’adresser les problèmes de leurs jeunes protégés, ont été informés qu'ils ne seront plus payés. Les loyers augmentent, et les emplois fournis par l'État qui écoulaient de l'argent dans ces zone économiquement délaissées ont été réduits au nom d'une transition à un programme dit de "Grande Société" (“Big Society”) basé sur le bénévolat privé. Les habitants de ces quartiers, déjà très démunis, n’ont aujourd'hui plus rien. Et ils n’ont plus rien à perdre.

Le rôle des médias dans cette affaire ne doit pas pour autant être écarté. Malgré toutes les références à la "manifestation pacifique" qui a précédé les événements de Tottenham, les médias auraient sans doute à peine touché cette histoire si les évènements s’étaient restreints à une simple veillée devant un poste de police. La violence policière et les protestations contre celle-ci sont lieu commun. C'est seulement quand l'autre côté répond par la violence (sur des cibles légitimes ou non) que les médias se sentent obligés de donner à ces affaires toute leur attention.

C’est donc sans surprise que des populations condamnées depuis des décennies à vivre dans des abîmes de pauvreté et de violence déclarent enfin la guerre à la société toute entière. C’est sans surprise que des gens s’adonnent au pillage de téléviseurs à écran plasma et autres biens à haute valeur ajoutée -- biens qui leur permettront de payer plusieurs mois de loyer -- et ignorent les livres non-monnayables assis sur les étagères des grandes librairies commerciales. C’est la seule forme de redistribution économique que beaucoup d’entre eux verront pour des années à venir, pendant qu’ils continuent leurs vaines recherches d’emploi.

Beaucoup d’attention à été portée sur le fait que les émeutiers ont attaqué "leurs propres communautés." Mais une émeute ne se produit pas dans un vide social. Les émeutes des années quatre-vingt avaient tendance à être plus ciblées -- de manière générale, les émeutiers évitaient de s’attaquer à des innocents, se concentrant sur des objectifs plus représentatifs de l'oppression raciale et de classe: la police, les commissariats de police, et les grands commerces. Qu'est-ce qui a changé depuis cette période? Les gouvernements successifs ont fait de grands efforts pour détruire toute notion de solidarité entre travailleurs, et toute notion de solidarité de classe et d'identité. Est-il donc surprenant que ces émeutiers, à leur tour, s’attaquent aux autres membres de notre classe?

Le travail de la Solidarity Federation se fonde sur la résistance contre le Capital et l’Etat sur le terrain du travail. Nous ne sommes aucunement impliqués dans ces émeutes et actes pillages, et contrairement aux jugements-réflexes de la droite, ou même à ceux des commentateurs sympathiques-mais-condamnateurs de la gauche, nous refusons tout autant de condamner que d’excuser ceux qui n’en savent pas mieux pour s’être approprié d’une partie des richesses dont ils ont été privés toute leur vie.

Mais en tant que révolutionnaires, nous ne pouvons d’aucune manière soutenir des attaques contre les travailleurs et les innocents. La mise à feux de magasins en rez-de-chaussée d’appartements résidentiels; le saccage de moyens de transports en commun employés principalement par les classes populaires; les agressions sur personnes et autres formes d’injustices, sont tous des atteintes contre les membres de notre propre classe et doivent être combattus avec autant d'énergie que nous investissons dans notre résistance contre les politiques «d'austérité» du gouvernement, contre les loyers abusifs imposés par les propriétaires, et contre les patrons qui nous exploitent. Ce soir et aussi longtemps qu'il le faudra, les gens doivent s'unir pour se défendre quand de telles violences menacent leurs maisons et leurs communautés.

Nous somme convaincus que la légitime colère des émeutiers serait beaucoup plus puissante si elle était dirigée collectivement et démocratiquement, de manière non-seulement à éviter la victimisation des classes laborieuses, mais aussi dans l’objectif de créer un monde libre de l'exploitation et des inégalités inhérentes au capitalisme.

North London Solidarity Federation, Fédération de Solidarité de Londres-Nord.