Nigel Maskell analyses the May Day anti-capitalist demonstrations and comes to some disturbing conclusions. This article first appeared as three separate contibutions to the welshcommunists.co.uk discussion page.
It is understandable the sense of outrage, anger and frustration that all people face when confronted with global capitalism. However anarchists throwing stones into McDonalds, while symbolically can be seen as anti capitalism, it is not pro socialist. The whole anarchist outlook is not a million miles from either the objectivist or libertarian far right. It is egoist and and individualist. The whole language of the movement is drawn from that of the right and leaderless resistence.
However what is being expressed is a genuine anger. The conclusions to an extent are correct- i.e. it is capitalism as a political and economic system that is behind war, environmental degradation and superexploitation. If there is to be a backlash its here that it will be directed. Except that being anti capitalist in the sense of being a protesting anarchist does not make you a socialist. Recognising the enemy does not automatically draw you to correct conclusions, i.e. what is to replace capitalism and how transition is to be achieved ie revolutionary struggle.
I would be disappointed if I thought that Communists and Socialists were not at these Mayday events leafleting amongst what will be primariy young people who are rightly angry but thin on analysis and short of answers to complex political, economic and philosophical questions. As with Seattle and Quebec though, if there is to be a response to the crisis in capital (and lets face it, for the majority of the time its one crisis after another) then it must come from organised political action whether in force of arms or political struggle. However there is not an individualist answer.
Communists should be backing Labour Movement May Day marches and all movement events nationally and internationally and any anarchist posturing should be seen on the whole as counterproductive.
I think the only success of these anticapitalist demonstrations was that they did yet again show the nature of the state- it showed who the police were for. The television news folk must think that we are all living in virtual reality when the commentary bore no relation to the images on the screen.
However while these demonstrations drew together groups opposed to capitalism or at least opposed to some of the excesses of capitalism they were not in themselves anti capitalist but a lashing out against visible symbols while creating a few hours work for a few glaziers. The millions the thing may have cost big business will ultimately be turned into a cost that workers will bear, as they work through tea breaks or pay a bit extra for some things til the cost is met in full.
These anticapitalist demonstrations succeeded in getting these issues debated briefly on newsnight then a few grinning politicians responded to debates with their patronising speeches about the radical youth and then case closed.
What did get obscured, as in Quebec, is the demands of groups concerned; while trade union actions across the country got ignored altogether. The trouble with the anarchist groups leaderless response seems to be "radical" it is not a million miles from that of anarcho-capitalists, objectivists (and the Wacky Ayn Rand) and libertarians. It is the mirror of the Tory far right and while it comes from below it does not necessarily turn out as progressive as the slogans which front these movements.
I do not attempt to quote Lenin Bible style but I posted a quote that illustrated (restates) the importance of organisation and political dicipline. These are important words at this time as radicalised youth are becoming increasing attracted to these movements without leaders which lead not to levelling and equality, but are an expression of atomisation and individualism akin to Thatcher's 'there is no such thing as society'.
As for the Trots I am truly convinced that some of these ultra lefts believe that they push a copper the copper pushes back and then the barracades go up all over the valleys. I personally miss the old Soviet Parades with the red pom poms, the roses, and the biggest flags you would see anywhere.
I notice that there was no coverage of: 1. Labour movement Mayday. 2. Cuba Mayday. The media presented the Russian Mayday as a shadow of its former self even though over 300,000 attended Mayday marches across the country and over 20,000 in Moscow itself. Perhaps it needed a few more tanks and rockets.
Leaderless Protest?
The Mayday Monopoly website in a digital age probably played a role as an organiser, and certainly this should be worthy of further investigation- I am sure the digital media should be given the serious consideration as a media for organisation as newspapers and more traditional left organisation.
A website can give the impression that half a dozen people is a vast organisation. There was a numerical successful mobilization and much of it can be attributed to the internet. Secondly the mass media in discovering this new cyber media can lazily trawl for stories and put a spin on any old pudding. Thus by visiting the wombles site (I believe a link off the monopoly site, or maybe indymedia) the conservative mass media had its bogey men and women. The shady and secretive - wombles, the most dangerous organisation in Britain. Except the wombles turned out to be two dozen foam padded folks in boiler suits who were intent on having a good time in protest. These people exposed not only the police but the role of the mass media. Hats off to that.
However the whole enterprise was flawed.
1. To claim it was all as anticapitalist is a bit incorrect since the stress was on individuals and groups expressing individual beefs with capitalism, this is the recipe for riot but not for a unified and coherent movement articulating specific demands. For example a call for less polution is not anti capitalism, though it has the potential to be. It was an exercise in potential but little actual.
2. No movement was capable of growing out of these protests because of the stress on the individual over the organised. It was not an attempt to make links with the trade union movement and the organised working class but for disenfranchised and alienated people with GENUINE grevience to express anger in a thoroughly alientated and disenfranchised way. After all what has really been acheived outside a few minutes on newsnight that attempted to ask serious questions while getting politician type answers off politicians.
I emphasised leaderless not to suggest that there is no one behind the leaderless approach. Leaderless is a little misleading as a phrase. The right wing equivalent of leaderless has covered militia, NWO/ZOG conspiracy theorists and ultimately the likes of McVeigh or in Britain Copeland. It is the stress on individual acts that gives it a leaderless approach.
There is someone pulling strings whether its wombles or whoever. It is the left libertarianist approach that is theory not a million miles from right libertarianism. Indeed how you assert the coming forward of leaders through charisma etc is an individualist approach in itself. Yes make a costume, show up and articulate your demands, protest should be fun while at the same time being extremely serious as it keeps morale up and may enthuse others to get involved.
However without organisation and a coherent set of demands behind which all can unite rather than a group of individuals all articulating differing demands (which can obviously allow for sections being bought off) these events will be prone to ending in riots and it will be the agent provocateurs who will win the day time after time.
For further on Mayday visit the spark at www.wakeup.to/thespark or read the ezine at www.freespeech.org/thespark