Yes, I am sure more idiotic violence and people excusing it as a “tool in the box” will be a real winner.

Good and thoughtful post, Adam.

As I understand it, about a dozen people ended up in hospital treated for relatively minor injuries after Millbank, and of course one person could easily have been killed. Plainly this is not good, and the outcome could have been worse still. Just as plainly, nobody wants physical harm or worse to come to people as a result of future protests.

There’s nothing inherent in direct actions, occupations and sit-ins that makes such outcomes inevitable. This wave of protestors can clearly learn much from those on earlier, different campaigns about how to conduct powerful, effective direct action in a way that also keeps people safe. If all possible efforts are made to that end then that will not only be a good thing in itself (most importantly), but will also lessen the liklihood that incidents arise which split the broad movement.

[deleted]

Means to an end?

The problem is that the “end” has to be well defined with an agreement that once that is achieved then the activism can be wound down. I suspect that the “ends” desired by the anarchists and SWP at Millbank were somewhat different to the “ends” that the NUS are hoping to achieve. There are two different campaigns here, and the campaign being run by the SWP is not the same as the one being run by the NUS. That is why the NUS has no choice other than to condemn the vandalism. If they don’t then their campaign will lose its popular support and will die, the campaign of the Trots and anarchists will continue regardless.

“WTF is the ‘global justice movement’?”

The organisation opposed to the Legion of Doom.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Adam,

For a movement to use violence successfully it needs to have popular support and perceived legitimacy. Students have neither at the moment, so the violence was seen as wrong.

I also worry that you think ‘global justice’ can be achieved in alliance with those who are happy to break laws to suit their own ends. How many totalitarian regimes started off in alliance with less-extremist parties who tolerated their violence in return for political alliance? Violent extremists of any type will use whatever tools suit them – and will turn them on allies when it suits. I fail to see how tacitally approving violent behaviour, and therefore making the extremists appear part of your movement (since you do not denounce them), has anything to do with justice. If you are interested in justice, you oppose oppressors, and the oppressor to me is anyone who uses force to impose their will.

In effect, by calling for toleration of violence, you not only risk losing public support against the ‘cuts’ as people have to consider whose side they stand on, but also risk losing any legitimacy in your case, and perhaps ultimately risk losing your own movement to those who would happily push you aside using force if it suited them.

‘Those who write letters to their MP are likely to think that those who smash windows are damaging the movement. Those who break windows are likely to think that writing to your MP is a waste of time.’

And they’d both be right.

‘There is an old activist mantra – “use all of the tools in the box”. If we are going to be successful in doing this, we can’t just complain when other people use tools we don’t believe in. We must negotiate a settlement from which we can all face the same way, and fight, in our different ways, together.’

The end is seeded in the means. If you use violence you legitimate violence; if you campaign through parliament you just legitimate parliament.

“and some will write songs, poems or short testimonies.”

Oh, please god, not the poetry!

Please God let there be no street theatre.

Was there anything more deeply sad than a “die in”?

Hi all,

David – thanks. I agree that we shouldn’t support violence against people. Apart from the fire extinguisher – which was stupid, and roundly condemned by everyone there – the violence I saw from protestors (rather than perpetrated by the police) was, as you say, what you get when people who have never dealt with riot cops before are confronted with snatch squads and battons. It was wrong, and the reason that it happened is that these weren’t the usual suspects, who know how to deal with that scenario. They were often college students who seemed to have never been to a demo before.

So, the person who endangered lives by dropping/throwing the fire extinguisher deserves to be condemned. The people who reacted to a police line by throwing placards, etc, need to learn to chanel their anger better, and respond peacefully, even when confronted with violent policing.

But the vast majority of what happened – the useful tools to which I am referring, were that a building was occupied and some windows were broken. I do think these are tools in the activist box. I have personally never broken a window. But Emiline Pankhurt did. I am not going to criticise those who do.

So, let’s get over it – there has been a lot of hype about ‘violence’ at Millbank. There was some. But most of what happened was vandalism and an occupation. And that is a very different thing, and not something I’m willing to condemn. We can have long debates about how effective these relative tactics are. But each side will probably never persuade the other, so let’s stop the bickering and get on with what we all want to do – fighting the cuts. (I say all. Obviously I’m ignoring the Tories/trolls).

Thanks,

Adam

Good grief, there must be a lot of trolls Googling “Millbank violence”.

I thought things had improved here now that blanco is focusing more on his retakes. Plus ca change…

Right, so if some group strongly dislikes a climate camp, say, it can smash it up, because that’s just one of the “tools in the activist box”.

This blog does a really first rate job in discrediting the left.

Seems lefties can smash windows but right wingers can’t comment on blogs. See 3, 6 and 7. The original comment 1 has been completely erased.

Adam: can’t breaking windows contribute to creating an atmosphere of escalating violence which ends in something like the fire extinguisher incident? If you want to avoid the latter, then don’t you need to be very careful about the former too?

Hi Stuart,

Possibly. My point is not to say which of these are, or aren’t effective tactics, or in what circumstances they may or may not be. These are difficult and complex questions to which I don’t know the answers. My real point is to say that we could debate these questions forever, and we are unlikely to persuade each other. Or we can get on with the campaigning that we all want to do against cuts. We are likely to disagree with each others tactics at times, but rather than condemning each other when we do, we should keep our eyes on the prize.

If that makes sense.

Thanks,

Adam

Adam,

Suffragettes may have broken windows, but is that actually what got them the vote? Last time I checked, although there was an increasing movement for women to vote (so that by about 1902, when a woman was mistakenly issued a polling card, she was allowed to vote – she voted for a Conservative candidate opposed to women voting…), it was the effects of World War I (one big window breaking exercise) and women’s role in this that made this change inevitable.

I know of no evidence the actual violence towards windows won much if any significant support, apart from perhaps from glaziers. It was more a gesture of rage by people who had not achieved their aims as quickly as they wanted.

You have a good point there. Don’t forget the government wont hesitate to use violence through the police and military, so violence has obviously been legitimized, not by students or the public, but the government themselves when they choose to send the police out with batons and tear gas. Let’s not forget the Kent State students who were shot dead by soldiers protesting against the Vietnam war.

Watchman

Your example of the suffragettes actually supports Adam’s idea. If women were so near the vote in 1902, how come they still didn’t have it twelve years (and three general elections) later? Not in reaction to the activism of the suffragettes, but because the political leadership didn’t want it.

In 1918, though the ostensible reason for giving women the franchise was their service in World War I, it was also very clear that the government wanted to avoid a repeat of the pre-War civil unrest (especially as there was enough expected from other quarters).

Of course they weren’t going to say that, but it would have been heavily on their minds. The other reasons would have been there as well and a new leadership helped, but the changes had been caused by the sort of mixed economy of protest that Adam Ramsay is advocating.

Earlier you wrote:

For a movement to use violence successfully it needs to have popular support and perceived legitimacy. Students have neither at the moment, so the violence was seen as wrong.

But the polls show they have both. See my comment on the Poll finds most people support student demo thread (bit of a clue in the title) here:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/11/15/poll-finds-most-people-support-student-demo/#comment-197908

Adam – thanks. I think Stuart frames the question exactly right. Like you, I’m not going to cry myself to sleep over a broken window. Its not the window’s welfare that concerns me.

These needn’t be sources of acrimonious disagreement. How we do this safely is just a practical question, and I’m sure people within the movement will have turned towards giving that some serious thought over the last few days.

Its natural enough that emotions should run high after the intensity of last Wednesday’s events, but I think we’ll find now that the differences on the left are actually not that large at all. Direct and dramatic action is necessary. Safety is going to be a paramount concern when planning such actions. No reason why discussions about how you turn those broad principles into practical reality shouldn’t be friendly and fraternal. Posts like yours here are very helpful in that respect, I think.

What cuts?
I don’t see any cuts: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/uk-budget-what-cuts/

@ 22

Given that the author of that piece seems to think the people complaining about cuts are “students or arts councils or the BBC” – that is, two groups we love to hate and one broadcaster that very specifically does not complain about political policy – I’m gonna go with the the assumption that he’s some bigot with his head up his arse and can be safely ignored. So if by any chance you know Andreas Moser, do let him know.

…Also, you may want to whisper the words “inflation”, “population growth” and “it really does make a difference which departmental budgets are being cut” in his ear.

But no matter. I’m sure everyone here is desperate to subscribe to your blog now.