Debating anti-fascist strategy:
July 11, 2009
The debate about the lessons to be learned from the British National Party’s (BNP) victories in the European elections continues to loom large on the Left. We recently provided an analysis of trends and problems within mainstream anti-fascism, and others have been adding to the discussion. Unfortunately many are continuing to argue for the same ineffective strategies that have failed to halt the BNP’s rise up to now. Here’s a summary of what’s being said.
“Electoral fronts are not enough”
First up is Kofi Kyerewaa writing at The Commune on the notion of “no platform”. No doubt the tack of the article was inspired by the Unite Against Fascism (UAF) action outside the Palace of Westminster that saw BNP leader Nick Griffin’s press conference curtailed under a hail of eggs, placards and chants of “Nazi scum, off our streets”, along with the potential prosecution of the party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Kyerewaa places the origin of “no platform” with National Union of Students’ policy of the early 1990s, a point those with a history in the militant anti-fascist movement might resist. He argues strongly that the Left should oppose attempts to encourage forms of state action against the BNP:
Electoral victories for the BNP shows that it isn’t working. Such adherence to the principle of being willing to physically fight but not ideologically fight the BNP is absurd when they are close to controlling councils and have elected members of the European Parliament. The BNP are not going to be banned. Neither should we clamour for it: fascist ideas are not defeated by state diktat.
Though the idea that the Left as a whole is currently willing to “physically fight” the far-right is rather odd (and it would be a ridiculous strategy if it were the case), we must take the point that we need to combat the far-right ideologically and in practice. At present although the Left is willing to do the former (contra what Kyerewaa suggests) the problem is that the Left is stymied by its strategies and priorities. Ideology is inherently related to action and it is on both fronts that the Left is weak. Kyerewaa ably stresses this point, and proposes some attractive solutions that have long been avoided:
When socialists are campaigning on bread and butter issues like council housing or unemployment, working class people are dealt out rhetoric and propagandistic activity rather than mutual aid and support. The hard-left’s love-hate affair with the Labour Party has crippled it in acting independently on delivering social solutions. The BNP have been growing steadily in councillors, a prelude of bigger electoral gains, because they canvass through door-knocking much more than the radical left. Electoral fronts are not enough: we need a political project that is long-term in thinking and is relentless in building a constituency in communities and not just in remote trade union bureaucrats’ offices. [...]
Working people will only trust a political party that not only offers real change to the status quo, but appears to know how to do it. This is why community organising is so important
He goes on to say that this explains the relative success of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) compared to its counterparts south of the border. While this is perhaps true, and we don’t know enough about the details of the political work of each, the SSP has only had moderate success and cannot be taken as a simple template.
“The BNP vote was based on real racist hatred”
Next up is a more problematic article by Denis Fernando, of the Lesbian and Gay Coalition Against Racism, which was posted on the Socialist Unity blog. At first, the argument seems to have potential. Fernando argues: “The anti-fascist movement must review its strategy to deal with the increased fascist threat. There have been many debates in recent years and reality has now put them to the test.” We can concur with that. Fernando, however, goes on to say:
A united strategy, which brings together all these social forces and challenges the racist myths which are the cutting edge of the BNP, is the key to success. [...] The anti-fascist movement’s strategy must be based on what works. Not wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of trade union funds on a strategy that divides and weakens the anti-fascist majority.
In the abstract, unity makes sense. But what it amounts to in practise, as we recently outlined, is the unity of those with the greatest interest in opposing the BNP and those who are most passionately opposed, which has usually amounted to those supporting the Labour Party whether explicitly or implicitly. The outcome of this mode of thinking finds expression in Fernando’s diagnosis of the reasons for the BNP’s rise:
The BNP vote was based on real racist hatred as shown in the yougov poll for Channel 4 on the European elections.
By claiming support for the far-right is simply driven by racism Fernando effectively avoids the necessary examination of the genuine social dynamics behind BNP support. While it’s true that BNP voters tend to be more racist than the average voter, they also tend to be massively more alienated on a whole host of social measures, as we showed recently using the same polling data [pdf] quoted by Fernando. Of course racism is part of it, but it is by no means all of it.
Such an analysis leads naturally to the failing strategies we have already seen and that Fernando claims he wants to transcend. How do you combat a vote based on racism? You target non-racist voters to support established parties. What such a perspective avoids is the need to establish a political alternative to the BNP seeking to address the concerns of working class people.
“That is the job of politicians”
The Channel 4 YouGov poll has generated plenty of mileage for those who pursue such a strategy. Searchlight pursues more nuanced line by emphasising the fact that economic and political concerns form an important part of BNP support. Nick Lowles, of Searchlight, says:
It is an increasingly hard and loyal vote which is based on political and economic insecurities and moulded by deep-rooted racial prejudice. [...] The BNP [...] is the voice of a section of the white working class, particularly in those areas of traditional industry that have experienced the greatest economic and social upheaval over the past twenty years.
At the same time, however, Lowles rejects the notion that anti-fascists can engage in any form of positive political action whatsoever, arguing that this should be left to the mainstream parties:
We can mobilise the anti-BNP vote and even sometimes suppress the pro-BNP vote but we cannot build houses and reduce waiting lists; we cannot prevent undercutting of wages and the abuse of migrant workers. Local anti-fascist movements cannot get resources into communities, often the poorest, dealing with extraordinary levels of migration. That is the job of politicians and political parties.
The end result of such logic is shown when Lowles, incredibly, finds hope in the fact that “many of those equally disillusioned with the political process did not vote BNP but stayed at home”. This amounts to a form of political abstentionism and neglect. It underlines the fact that anti-fascism tied to the Labour Party is, in the final analysis, unable to meet the political challenges raised by the BNP’s rise.
“Build a broad anti-fascist movement”
Unite Against Fascism (UAF) pursue a broadly similar line in a policy document published this week. It contains all the usual lines of mainstream anti-fascism, arguing the BNP are attempting to pose as a “respectable” party, that they will “worm their way into the media establishment” etc. It also argues, misreading the same YouGov polling data, that BNP voters are “working class Tories” and don’t have genuine economic concerns (based on the fact that other issues top their lists of concerns).
Thus it says: “It is this combination of racism and resentment that drives them into the arms of the BNP, rather than notions of a multicultural elite betraying the ‘white working class’.” The fact that these two statements are quite compatible does not seem to have occurred to UAF. In any case, what’s the solution?
The urgent task is to build a broad anti-fascist movement with deep roots in working class areas, ethnic minority communities, LGBT organisations and the trade union movement. And it means building an active mass movement, one that is capable of mobilising for both elections and demonstrations against the BNP. Fascist parties are not simply electoral organisations, so anti-fascists cannot be either. Fascist parties are not simply racist propagandists, so anti-fascists cannot restrict themselves to anti-racist propaganda.
In terms of practical action, UAF plans to hold a national conference and a demonstration outside the BNP’s annual rally in rural Derbyshire next month. Unfortunately, this “analysis document” skips on an examination of UAF strategy: this is simply more of the same. Both Searchlight and UAF touch on some of the critical issues that now need to be at the heart of an effective anti-fascist campaign, but neither takes the quantumn leap needed to reorientate themselves to those ends.
“A racism of desperation”
To finish on a more useful note, Dave Osler gives a far better analysis of reasons for the BNP’s growing support than the two leading anti-fascist groups. He starkly sets out the challenge facing anti-fascists and the Left:
This is instead a racism rooted in the collapse of social housing, a racism born of the disappearance of blue collar employment and grassroots trade union organisation, a racism of benefit cuts, a racism centred on the perception that nobody in a position of authority really gives a shit. You might even want to call it a racism of desperation.
ANARCHISTS CANDIDATES FOR GENERAL ELECTION???
July 10, 2009
Here gather the ghosts of ‘liberty’, ‘equality’ and ‘justice’; those immortal phantoms which haunt whomsoever would betray kith, kin or society just to line their own pockets. Here is the icy breath of fate that the rich feel on the back of their bloated necks – a constant reminder that the great Levelling was not defeated, merely postponed.
“‘The past is not dead, it is living in us, and will be alive in the future which we are now helping to make.’”
Ian Bone has been enthusing about various anti-election strategies of late – Vote Nobody, None of the Above etc etc – but you just know they’ll all be an inconsequential wash out in reality and I’ve long since realised that most people who cant be arsed to vote couldnt be arsed to save you from drowning either! Theres an interesting article in the latest FREEDOM about the anarchist holy principle of not voting and arguing for a vote. It’s always amused me that many anarchists say ‘By any means necessary’ – being apparently keen to wage havoc with a machine gun but not to vote! So let’s debate the unthinkable – standing candidates at the General Election:
Thanks to everyone who’s contributed to the mostly thoughtful thread on standing for election. Surprisingly most people were in favour of standing candidates which must indicate a bit of a sea change in ideas…but…Where now?
The seagreen society are seriously considering standing in the next elections, but if we ever going to achieve any real and lasting change then we need (collectively) to consider long term strategies. Most importantly we have to create a coherent and continual identity for our movement.
The following idea has more to do with marketing than politics and it will count for nothing if it is not combined with solid groundwork in working class communities. But I think it’s safe to say that, thanks mainly to moribund left, we have some work to do on the identity front.
With regard to creating a cohesive identity I think we could do a lot worse than look at the first (and possibly the only…) people’s political party in England, The Levellers.
This idea isn’t half as crazy as it sounds. The Levellers were committed broadly to the abolition of corruption within the Parliamentary and judicial process, toleration of religious differences, the translation of law into the common tongue, and the expansion of suffrage… Any of this sound remotely relevant today?
A new Leveller Party could celebrate what E.P.Thompson identified as the core working-class values of solidarity, collectivism, mutuality, political radicalism and self-determination. Furthermore, by citing these values historically, we can counter the right’s stranglehold on ‘tradition’.
Last but not least the use of colour has always played a major role in party politics and the sea-green ribbons associated with the original Levellers can provide us with a very powerful visual identity. Sea-green flags and rosettes could prove to be very effective marketing tools.
It’s just an idea (albeit a bit of a weird one), but I think it has some merit. What do other people think?
In July, 1646 ‘Freeborn’ John Lilburne was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London for denouncing his former commander, Edward Montagu the 2nd Earl of Manchester, as a traitor and Royalist sympathiser. It wasn’t unusual for Lilburne to be imprisoned – he remains the only man to be tried for treason by both king and parliament – but on this occasion the campaign to free him led to the formation of the political party known as the Levellers. The Levellers are arguably the first ever (some may argue only ever…) party of the people.
The Levellers were committed broadly to the abolition of corruption within the Parliamentary and judicial process, toleration of religious differences, the translation of law into the common tongue, and the expansion of suffrage. Sadly many of the Leveller’s aims remain relevant today.
363 years later we’re still suffering the effects of corruption in Parliament and we have a judicial system controlled by a non-elected self-serving elite who use a language all of their own. So the question we have to ask ourselves is where is our Leveller Party?
“I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.”
The Levellers knew a thing or two about political corruption and the open abuse of power. When we read the Great Leveller Petition of September 11th, 1648 we can’t help thinking that democracy would be a lot healthier if this document had become law. Whilst we have seen some improvements in the last 360 years reading the Levellers reminds us just how undemocratic modern democracy is. These are the principles put forward in the petition…
The truth is ( and we see we must either now speak it, or for ever be silent, ) We have long expected things of an other nature from you, and such as we are confident would have given satisfaction to all serious people of all Parties.
As,
1. That you would have made good the supreme authoritie of the people, in this Honourable House, from all pretences of Negative Voices, either in King or Lords.
2. That you would have made laws for election of representatives yearly and of course without writ or summons.
3. That you would have set expresse times for their meeting Continuance and Dissolution: as not to exceed 40 or 50 daies at the most, and to have fixed an expresse time for the ending of this present Parliament.
4. That you would have exempted matters of Religion and Gods worship, from the compulsive or restrictive power of any Authoritie upon earth, and reserved to the supreme authouritie an un-compulsive power only of appointing a way for the publick, whereby abundance of misery, persecution, and heart-burning would for ever be avoyded.
5. That you would have disclaimed in your selves and all future Representatives, a power of Pressing and forcing any sort of men to serve in warrs, there being nothing more opposite to freedom, nor more unreasonable in an authoritie impowered for raising monies in all occasions, for which, and a just cause, assistants need not be doubted; the other way serving rather to maintain injustice and corrupt parties.
6. That you would have made both Kings, Queens, Princes, Dukes, Earls, Lords, and all Persons, alike liable to every Law of the Land, made or to be made; that so all persons even the Highest might fear and stand in aw, and neither violate the publick peace, nor private right of person or estate, ( as hath been frequent ) without being lyable to accompt as other men.
7. That you would have freed all Commoners from the jurisdiction of the Lords in all cases: and to have taken care that all tryalls should be only by twelve sworn men, and no conviction but upon two or more sufficient grown witnesses.
8. That you would have freed all men from being examined against themselves, and from being questioned or punished for doing of that against which no Law hath bin provided.
9. That you would have abbreviated the proceedings in Law, mitigated and made certain the charge thereof in all particulars.
10. That you would have freed all Trade and Marchandising from all Monopolizing and Engrossing, by Companies or otherwise.
11. That you would have abolished Excise, and all kinds of taxes, except subsidies, the old and onely just way of England.
12. That you would have laid open all late Inclosures of Fens, and other Commons, or have enclosed them onely or chiefly to the benefit of the poor.
13. That you would have considered the many thousands that are ruined by perpetual imprisonment for debt, and provide for their enlargement.
14. That you would have ordered some effectual course to keep people from begging and beggery, in so fruitful a Nation as through Gods blessing this is.
15. That you would have proportioned Punishments more equal to offences; that so mens Lives and Estates might not be forfeited upon trivial and slight occasions.
16. That you would have removed the tedious burthen of Tythes, satisfying all Impropriators, and providing more equal way of maintenance for the publike Ministers.
17. That you would have raised a stock of Money out of those many confiscated Estates you have had, for payment of those who contributed voluntarily above their abilities, before you had provided for those that disturbed but of their superfluities.
18. That you would have bound your selves and all future Parliaments from abolishing propriety, levelling mens estates, or making all things common.
19. That you would have declared what the duty or business of the Kingly office is, and what not, and ascertained the revenue, past increase or diminution, that so there might never be quarrels about the same.
20. That you would have rectified the election of publike Officers for the Citie of London, and of every particular Company therein, restoring the Comunalty thereof to their just Rights, most unjustly with-held from them, to the producing and maintaining of corrupt interest, opposite to common Freedom, and exceedingly prejudicial to the Trade and Manafactures of this Nation.
21. That you would have made full and ample reparations to all persons that had bin oppressed by sentences in High Commission, Star-Chamber, and Counsel Board, or by any kind of Monopolizers or Projectors; and that out of the Estates of those that were Authors, Actors, or Promoters of so intollerable mischiefs: and that without much attendance or seeking.
22. That you would have abolished all Committees, and have convayed all businesses into the true method of the usual Tryals of the Common-wealth.
23. That you would not have followed the example of former tyrannous and superstitious Parliaments, in making Orders, Ordinances, or Laws, or in appointing punishments concerning opinions or things super-natural, stiling some blasphemies, other heresies; when as you know your selves easily mistaken, and that divine Truths need no humane helps to support them: such proceedings having bin generally invented to divide the people amongst themselves, and to affright men from that liberty of discourse by which Corruption and tyranny would soon be discovered.
24. That you would have declared what the business of the Lords is, and ascertain their condition, not derogating from the Liberties of other men, that so there might be an end of striving about the same.
25. That you would have done Justice upon the Capital Authors and Promoters of the former or late wars, many of them being under your power: Considering that mercy to the wicked, is cruelty to the innocent: all your lenity doth but make them the more insolent and presumptuous.
26. That you would have provided constant pay for the Army, now under the command of the Lord General Fairfax, and given rules to all Judges, and all other publike Officers throughout the Land for their indempnity and for the saving harmless all that have any waies assisted you, or that have said or done any thing against the King, Queen, or any of his party since the beginning of this Parliament without which any of his party are in a better condition then those who have served you; nothing being more frequent with them, then their reviling of you and your friends.
The things and worthy Acts which have bin done and atchieved by this Army and their Adherents ( how ever ingratefully suffered to be scandalized as Sectaries and men of Corrupt Judgements ) in defence of the just authority of this honourable House, and of the common liberties of the Nation, and in opposition to all kind of Tyranny and oppression, being so far from meriting an odious Act of Oblivion, that they rather deserve a most honourable Act of perpetual rememberance, to be as a patern of publik vertue, fidelity, & resolution to all posterity.
27. That you would have laid to heart all the abundance of innocent bloud that hath bin spilt, and the infinite spoil and havock that hath bin made of peaceable harmless people, by express commissions from the King: and seriously to have considered whether the justice of God be likely to be satisfied, or his yet continuing wrath appeased, by an Act of Oblivion.
The full petition can be read here.
Breaking the vicious circle of irrelevance:
July 9, 2009
Regular readers of Left Luggage will know they regularly distinguish between working and Middle Class people in many of there analytical pieces. Left Luggage largely take this distinction for granted and also stress its significance, unlike much of the Left which favours a more widely encompassing notion of working class.
To an extent Left Luggage agree with this economically-based definition of class, which stresses workers’ place in the structure of the economy as being the crucial variant that both provides the material interest in and the strategic location for an overthrow of existing social relations. On the other hand, if we confine ourselves to an economic definition of class we exclude important elements of power and culture without which we can easily become strategically hamstrung.
Left Luggage have argued previously that the Left in Britain is currently dominated by middle class people. What do we mean by this, why is is significant, and how?
The classifications are based on the occupation of the head of the household.
| Grade | Social class | Chief Income Earner’s Occupation |
|---|---|---|
| A | upper middle class | Higher managerial, administrative or professional. |
| B | middle class | Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional |
| C1 | lower middle class | Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional |
| C2 | skilled working class | Skilled manual workers |
| D | working class | Semi and unskilled manual workers |
| E | underclass | Casual or lowest grade workers, pensioners and others who depend on the welfare state for their income |
The grades are often grouped into ABC1 and C2DE and these are taken to equate to middle class and working class respectively. Only around 2% of the UK population identifies as upper class, and this group is not included in the classification scheme.
One measure of the social class of the British Left would be to examine the social and occupational backgrounds of activists. Dealing with generalities is unavoidable here, but we would argue it is patently the case that middle class people (on this definition) predominate. While many on the Left baulk at the measure, the standard sociological grading of class – using the ABC1 C2DE system – provides a useful measure. It is obvious that for much of the Left, sets B and C1 are vastly over-represented. It is impossible not to generalise, but think of teachers, administrators in the public sector, university lecturers, and students from parents in such occupations. This is purely anecdotal, and many people may disagree. But studies have also shown that so-called “new social movements”, issue-based campaigns such as peace and environmental movements, are dominated by socially middle class people.
Why is this significant? Well, if we acknowledge there is more to people’s ideas and ideologies than simply their relationship to the means of production, we have to start to take account of culture as an important variable. On a simple level, the point is obvious: people with different life experiences will have a different conception of the world, different assumptions and expectations about what is normal, desirable, or possible. We would recognise this intuitively when comparing, say, someone educated at a public school with wealthy parents with someone from a comprehensive school with working class parents. But we fail to recognise less glaring differences between middle class and working class people. So social class creates gaps that are perfectly bridgeable, but nonetheless need to be recognised.
But social class affects priorities and interests, too. Large-scale studies in both France and Britain have shown a remarkably close relationship between social class and cultural taste, such that interests and likings pretty exactly track class. That is not to say this is predetermined, but over a wide field the differences are significant. And there’s the rub. One glance at the priorities of the Left (again, to generalise horribly), what is spoken and written about, demonstrates a remarkable bias towards issues and campaigns that are divorced from the everyday concerns of working class people in Britain.
As Left Luggage have stated previously, there is an overwhelming emphasis on international movements and events. One needn’t spend time measuring column inches to acknowledge the amount of coverage of, for example, Palestine hugely dwarfs anything written about housing, crime or education. The enormous coverage of the recent protests in Iran compared to the scant focus on the Lindsey oil refinery strikes, which at their height had about 10,000 workers taking illegal solidarity action, is yet more evidence of this trend.
How to account for this? Left Luggage would argue the overwhelming predominance of international issues (and the slant on national issues) on the Left’s agenda reflects the cultural interests of the Left’s socially middle class base. This is self-reinforcing in that a lot of Left recruitment is targeted at students, who are more likely to be from middle class backgrounds (although this has decreased slightly in recent years) and are also more likely (perhaps even more likely than socially middle class workers) to be interested in such issues.
It is true the Left should be internationalist. It should also be strong and deeply-rooted in working class communities. Unfortunately the latter two precede the former and at present it is neither. It seems like the Left is currently in a vicious circle, with a middle class base producing middle class priorities and maintaining the gulf with the vast majority of working class people. How to bridge this gulf is the real question.
The main hope must be for a turn by the Left towards the politics of everyday life to address those concerns that carry meaning for people beyond the Left milieu. There have been some promising initiatives in recent years from a variety of small groups such as the Independent Working Class Association and Liberty & Solidarity, among others. There has also been a wellspring of locally-focussed, sometimes slightly apolitical, community groups addressing such issues. Perhaps the energy can come from these quarters to break the vicious circle of Left irrelevance.
Arundel Joinery Sheffield:
July 8, 2009
Another one bites the dust planning application no 09/00745/FUL was regceted at The West and North planning meeting, which was hold on the 7th July a room full of local people herd Sheffield City Council reject the application from Tesco.
TESCO put forward plans to build a new convenience store on the land between Springvale Road and Commonside. A similar proposal for the same site had already been rejected once this now being no 2. Across Sheffield there are currently numerous objections fi led by the local council, as well as petitions organised byconcerned residents.
The area between Walkley and Crookes (where the site rests) is somewhat unique for Sheffield – representing one of few areas as of yet untouched by the business of large corporations. The proposed development not only represents a threat to local business and an increased risk of traffic congestion but also threatens the unique character of this Sheffi eld suburb. Corporations like TESCO, ASDA and the other superstore giants do not care for social diversity, for community concerns or our local issues. They have one priority and one priority only – profit. Areas like Walkley and Crookes are simply swallowed up and transformed into clones of other British high streets before them – no choice, no diversity.
No Social Responibility.They also seriously threaten basic social amenities that are essential to any neighbourhood. In October 2002,TESCO bought 870 One Stop, Day & Night or Dillons shops across the UK, almost 1/2 of which contained a sub post office. TESCO is now busily converting these shops into TESCO Express, closing 100 post offi ces, often in the smallest communities, in the process. When
TESCO has attempted to branch out into community programmes it has proved deeply demeaning to the enduring efforts of well-meaning volunteers. “Community sponsorship” is a much needed luxury for cashstarved charities and enterprises.
However, it is always accompanied by the mandatory corporate stamp and logo. The most well-intentioned of projects are automatically opportunity for another PR exercise for the superstore giant. Bad for the environment. TESCO’s is not a responsible or ethical employer. It has repeatedly been exposed for its poor environmental record and its stores (in a study by Sheffi eld Hallam University) were found to be the most energy-ineffi cient in the sector. This is despite repeated claims by TESCO management that they are a “green” company. In fact, it would take more than 60 corner shops and greengrocers to match the carbon dioxide emissions from one average sized superstore. Bad for workers. Worldwide TESCO does not respect the right of workers to a fair wage, to decent working hours or a right to organize.
For example, in Turkey TESCO has had a history of engaging in union-busting campaigns. Pressure is put on union members to resign in the hopes that the company can push representation below fifty per cent and thus ignore worker representation rights. Even as union membership has grown well beyond the half-way level TESCO still contests recognition and refuses to meet with union leaders. In the UK, the major food retailers can exert undue pressure on suppliers causing job losses in food processing companies that simply cannot produce goods at the prices TESCO and their competitors wish to pay. In Chard in March 2006 local GMB activists organised a demonstration outside TESCO when the company pulling a contract from a local employer resulted in 850 job losses in the South West, and 500 in Chard alone. Time to make a difference. Plans to build a convenience store in your neighbourhood may seem trivial at first (and this is exactly how companies like TESCO want it to appear). But the issues exposed have the potential to seriously impair community life. Corporations like TESCO thrive on indifference and apathy towards their policies. So, let’s force on them the accountability and the scrutiny they deserve. Let us defend what we have here and not allow Walkley to become yet another bland outlet, a clone high street in “superstore Britain”.
5 things you ought to know about Tesco superstore:
1. TESCO does not provide good jobs for local people. TESCO supermarket jobs are low paying, have long hours and shop stewards have reported trouble in getting workers on to company pensions schemes. TESCO has categorically stated for past Sheffield developments that it does not intend to hire its “high skilled” (and higher paying) labour from the local area.
2. TESCO is bad for the environment. TESCO transports millions of tonnes of produce around the world, contributing to climate change through transport emissions. A 2005 Friends of the Earth survey found that TESCO came lowest out of the supermarket chains for sourcing British apples. TESCO stores are also the most environmentally inefficient in the sector.
3. TESCO exploits workers worldwide. Women in Bangladesh making clothes for TESCO and ASDA earn as little as 5p an hour working 14 hours a day. Workers in Costa Rica producing bananas for export to all major UK supermarkets earn 33p an hour – a wage so low that they cannot afford to take an hour off when dangerous pesticides are being sprayed on the crops. There are countless other examples of TESCO’s negligence towards its workers poverty wages, poor working conditions and supplier’s union-busting campaigns.
4. TESCO kills community life. Despite its commitment towards “community sponsorship”, TESCO has a poor record working with communities. TESCO creates neither choice nor convenience. It removes the diversity of social life outside the superstore and clutters the streets with waste and traffi c. The corporation uses its disproportionate (and unchecked) economic power to manipulate political influence and regional control to its own shareholders ends.
5. TESCO already has five other stores within walking distance – West Street, Infi rmary Road, Fulwood Road, Southey and Ecclesall (not to mention other companies
They will no doubt apeal and we need to rady for when they do so,here is what Sheffield Green Party has said:
It is good to see local people and councillors objecting to a further bid for a Tescos on Commonside (’New Bid For Supermarket’ The Star 30th March.) What a pity that councillors on the City Centre and East Planning Board supported the application for a Tescos on Abbeydale Road against the expressed wishes of local people? Why did the LibDems vote in Council against a plea by the Federation of Small Businesses to stop supermarkets driving independent local stores out of business?
Supermarket chains drive out local independent businesses and dominate our high-streets. In championing choice, local communities are strangled and left with no choice. They control over 80% of the food business, seriously damaged small farmers and growers and increase road traffic. The claim that they create jobs does not bear close examination. They have hoodwinked both the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading and halted the recommended Code of Practice.
Sheffield Green Party will continue to campaign at both a local and city wide level to bring back the control of our high streets to local people. We will encourage people to use the new powers they have through the Sustainable Communities Act to stop the destruction of our local shopping centres.
With proper regulation the real costs of our food system will be reflected in the price paid at the check-out and we will see the back of these clone town creating bullies.
Yours Sincerely
Bernard Little.
Green Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Sheffield
Central Constituency
RESIDENTS of the Parkhead area of Sheffield are keeping up the pressure on the council to reject plans for a Tesco Express store. A petition with 1,800 names was submitted to the Town Hall on the 24 October 2008 , objecting to an application to redevelop the site of the old Parkhead garage in Ecclesall Road South.
The latest plans for TESCO’s mixed-use development at the corner of Spital Hill and Savile Street have been submitted to the Council’s planning board following amendments to their design. The proposals include a 10,000 square metre supermarket, four storey offices, a car park and several ‘neighbourhood retail units’. This will create an unbroken commercial development that will wrap around the old Hartwells site and up Spital Hill, finishing at a new public space below the East House pub. It is hoped the new store will provide several hundred new jobs with 200 of these earmarked for the long-term unemployed.
TESCO’s architects have re-drafted their initial plans after officials expressed concern that the designs lacked integration with the existing buildings, particularly the historic Wicker Arches. Although many residents are in favour of the new store, objections have been raised against the planned closing-off of Carlisle Street which some residents have said will increase their journey times and effect local buses. Tesco believes this measure will improve access to the supermarket entrance. If the Council gives its approval, the store could open at the end of 2010.
RESIDENTS in a Sheffield suburb have condemned supermarket giant Tesco for ruining their quality of life with disruptive delivery lorries. People living near the Tesco Express store on Abbeydale Road South at Totley Rise say the store has blighted their life with huge, noisy lorries often clogging up local streets.It comes as councillors at Sheffield Council agreed to allow the store to receive deliveries on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Under the terms of the store’s original planning consent deliveries on Sundays and Bank Holiday were prohibited – to allow locals to have some peace and quiet. But the store argued it had to have deliveries on these days too to keep it well stocked. The move was opposed by Sheffield Hallam MP and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, a 173-name petition and the council received 55 letters of objection. Brian Stubbs, aged 61, of Devonshire Road, who lives around the corner from the store, told the meeting: “Tesco seems to be like a magnet. It is almost like they are giving food away free. People come from all around.”Planning officer Chris Heeley said the suggested changes were a “reasonable compromise”. But the meeting’s chairman suggested amending the proposed changes to 10.30am to 6.30pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays, with Monday to Saturday deliveries as originally proposed, and the suggestion was carried.
Mr Stubbs condemned the decision and said: “Who will police this? Tesco just do what they like.”It is not just about the noise of deliveries, it is about parking. People park on double yellow lines, on verges, but when the big delivery lorries are there it is just much, much worse.”Neighbour Ian Cockburn, 60, also of Devonshire Road, added: “Tesco has dramatically altered our quality of life. It’s pathetic.”
{NOTES}
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk
http://archive.corporatewatch.org
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk
http://www.burngreavemessenger.org
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield
An official report into policing during the G20 protests has found that police officers had failed to recognise the Press Card and has called for greater collaborations between the press and police authorities.
In its Adapting to Protest report, released today, the Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) finds that the police’s treatment of the media was inadequate. In interviews with eight press members and following a written submission by the National Union of Journalists, the HMIC reports that ‘it was generally felt though that having a spokesperson available some three miles from the scene was not helpful and that there could have been a more proactive police engagement on the ground on 01 April 2009.’
The report continues: ‘A more facilitative approach would also be more consistent with police practice in dealing with other significant incidents. Journalists suggested that opportunities to interview front line officers to obtain real time commentaries would clarify the policing perspective and assist public understanding of events. A suggestion was also made that there may be the potential to embed individuals with police units and commanders as is done with the military. It was considered that the police grew more and more unresponsive as negative reports increased and it was commented that the MPS withdrew into a “bunker”.’
The HMIC also criticised the inability of police officers to recognise photographers’ press cards. ‘Observations were made on the inability to move freely in and out of cordons, with some front line officers failing to recognise the Press Card,’ the report reads. ‘Experiences on this matter varied, but journalists were unanimous in the belief that persistence was required due to an inconsistent application of this policy across cordons.’
However, police commanders quizzed by the HMIC revealed frustrations about the media coverage ‘of the challenge the police faced on 01 and 02 April. Initial coverage of the event was positive but by 05 April was becoming more critical. This intensified following the emergence of images relating to the death of Ian Tomlinson.’
Journalists and broadcasters also provided views as to how communication between police and the media could be strengthened. ‘Ideas suggested include: an improved police event website; embedding journalists with frontline police; police briefing at the scene; and making frontline officers experience available after the event(s).’
However, photographers remain sceptical that the report will change police’s relations with the media. Over the past two years, organisations such as the British Press Photographers’ Association and the NUJ have tried to gain access to rank-and-file officers at the Metropolitan Police training facilities, but their requests have been denied or indefinitely delayed.
cunts:
July 7, 2009
The Ian Tomlinson murder copper had previous
July 6, 2009
The Ian Tomlinson murder copper had previous allegations which should have barred him from the Met. He was accused of a road rage attack but left the Met before disciplinary action could be take. Some years later he re-joined the Met without his previous disciplinary being discovered and then transferred to the TSG. One continuous stream of lies and deceit in the case.
The officer has been questioned under caution by investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission on suspicion of manslaughter after he was caught on film striking and pushing over Tomlinson. The 47-year-old newspaper vendor died shortly afterwards. A first postmortem indicated he had died of a heart attack, but Tomlinson’s family demanded a second examination, which identified internal bleeding as the cause of death.
The IPCC, which is investigating the death of Ian Tomlinson, is aware of the situation about the officer’s past, as is Scotland Yard. Both declined to comment officially while the investigation into the death was continuing.
The week befor Police floated imposter theory over Ian Tomlinson’s death at G20 protests A senior police officer who investigated the death of Ian Tomlinson told his family that the officer who struck him at the G20 demonstrations could have been a member of the public “dressed in police uniform”, it emerged last night.
The City of London police investigator made the comment at an emergency meeting with Tomlinson’s family and the Independent Police Complaints Commission on 8 April, hours after the Guardian released footage showing the attack on the 47-year-old newspaper vendor.
“….we may return to the issue of “specialist” officers such as the TSG and FIT at a later time.”
From an email received from the Home Affairs Committee after it was suggested that the ‘untrained & inexperienced’ excuse was rather thin considering:
1. Bronze Commander Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson was on Cornhill in contact with Gold Commander (Commander Bob Broadhurst) during the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson at the Cornhill end of Royal Exchange Buildings.
2. Highly trained CoL Police dog handlers were using dogs as weapons against non-violent protesters (despite guidelines on their use) on Threadneedle Street and against Ian Tomlinson during the deadly assault.
3. The ’Activist experts’ of the FIT (at least 5, including PCs Alan Palfrey and Steve Discombe) were present at the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson, yet did not intervene to prevent the assault (despite knowing IT was not a ’face’), and did not make a statement about being witnesses until AFTER the official line (heart attack, no contact with police) had been demolished.*
4. The public order specialists of the TSG were in the thick of it – the IT hitter was TSG, the Climate Camp was TSG, the ‘FIsher hitter’ was a TSG sergeant, etc; in fact once things got fruity, only the full time riot cops of the TSG (Level 1s) and the well-trained volunteer riot reservists (Level 2s) were on the frontline – yer standard untrained, really-rather-not-be-there cops-given-a-helmet-and-shield (Level 3s) were pulled back.
So it will be interesting to see if the HAC really does investigate the bullshit or not – and especially whether it intends to pursue the matter of command and doctrinal responsibility.
* Note also that the ‘Fisher hitter’ TSG sergeant, suspended whilst being investigated for 2 assaults including Nicola Fisher is ex-FIT, and had been on FIT duties on 1st April
Thursday 2 July we here news of the pathologist who said Ian Tomlinson died of natural causes at the G20 protests has been suspended from an official government register and is under two separate investigations into his professional conduct, it emerged today.
Freddy Patel, who conducted the first postmortem into Tomlinson which found he died of a heart attack, has been removed from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists pending an inquiry, amid concern into whether he has breached regulations.
His suspension means he is barred from undertaking any further postmortems in “suspicious death” cases.
Where now for anti-fascism?
July 6, 2009
Following the initial attempts by mainstream anti-fascists to spin the European election results, are there any indications that lessons have been learned from BNP’s victory?
There are differences in the strategic approaches of Searchlight and Unite Against Fascism, but in the past, mainstream anti-BNP campaigns have shared a number of features. What are these features, and are they still intact following the Euro elections?
1) “Denying them the respectability they crave.”
This element of the strategy is aimed at those who might be tempted to vote BNP – presumably those on low incomes, who hold hardline anti-immigration views and who are disenchanted with establishment politics. The goal is to put off potential BNP voters by creating the impression that the Party is ”beyond the pale” of what is respectable. Elements of this strategy include emphasising the “Nazi” pedigree of certain BNP leaders, listing BNP members’ criminal convictions and arguing that they’re somehow trying to “take advantage” of the democratic process in order to undermine it. To the degree this tactic is successful, it has the useful side effect of legitimising arguments for legal restrictions on the BNP. If they are not a “normal” political party, there is no reason to extend to them the rights enjoyed by other parties. This argument for legal restrictions is often referred to as the “No Platform” argument (although militant anti-fascists might protest that ”no platform” means something quite different).
In the case of UAF, all three elements of this strategy appear to have survivived the Euro election car crash in tact, judging from the interview SWP and UAF leader Martin Smith gave to Channel 4 News. Searchlight, however, seems to have abandoned this strategy on the grounds that the BNP has already achieved respectablity. The organisation’s founder, Nick Lowles, admitted:
We also have to accept that the political landscape has shifted. Searchlight comes from a proud tradition of No Platform, a belief that fascism should not be allowed to air its politics of hate publicly. We have always opposed legitimising fascism through public debate and where fascists try to incite hatred within communities through provocative marches and actions, we have backed mobilisations against them.
While I still adhere to this in principle I also believe that we have to accept a new reality. Firstly the BNP has MEPs and whether we like it or not Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons will appear more regularly on television. No platform agreements between political parties were already breaking down before the election, with only Labour holding to them, and this process is likely to quicken now.
Although Searchlight seem to have quietly shelved “No Platform”, there is no sign that UAF will do the same. The group’s main constituent organisation – the Socialist Workers’ Party – hinted at its intentions with a passage in its open letter to the Left:
The Nazis’ success will encourage those within the BNP urging a “return to the streets”.
This would mean marches targeting multiracial areas and increased racist attacks. We need to be ready to mobilise to stop that occurring.
The BNP’s “real aim” (so the SWP story goes) is not to win elections, but to use street violence to foment racial tension. Therefore, it should be treated as a Nazi criminal conspiracy rather than a political party. Tactics appropriate for dealing with a rival party (refuting your opponent’s arguments and trying to convince people of your own worldview and arguments) are pointless because they do nothing to stop the BNP achieving its real aims. Instead, our focus should be on the street-level activities of the far right. Its public marches should be robustly countered with “shows of force” that will demoralise the fascists. A glance at UAF’s “events” page shows how the group’s activities revolve almost entirely around demonstrations and rallies.
It is easy to see how this narrative aids SWP recruitment. It offers impressionable middle class students the prospect of regular, high adrenaline confrontations with the fascists, rather than the less glamourous task of tackling the BNP politically in working class communities where they are successful.
It goes without saying that these tactics, and the view of the BNP that underpins them, are completely wrong-headed and indeed counter-productive. But since they are so useful as recruitment tools for the SWP, and as a way of side-stepping the challenge of opposing the BNP politically, they will probably be around for some time to come.
2) “…to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat.”
The above is from the “about us” section of the UAF website. To unite the overwhelming majority who are not attracted to the BNP seems uncontroversial. As we’ve noted previously, research indicates that the BNP is so disliked by a large majority of the population that even those who share many of the Party’s views on policy are put off from voting for it. However, there are a number of problems with the way “broad-based anti-fascism” works in practice.
Firstly, opening up anti-fascist campaigns to “all those opposed to the BNP” in reality means “those with the greatest interest in opposing the BNP, and those who are most passionately opposed.” Politically, this means Labour, who risks losing some of its core supporters to the BNP. Socially, it means liberal sections of the white middle class as well as politically organised groups of black and Asian people.
One way of drawing on the support of such groups is to “swamp” the BNP vote in elections by maximising the turnout among people certain not to vote BNP. This was the strategy used on the Isle of Dogs, after the election of BNP councillor Derek Beacon in 1993. The following year Beacon’s vote rose – but not as much as the anti-BNP vote, as Asian voters turned out in large numbers.
Another manifestation of this tactic is the use of large anti-fascist carnivals. UAF organised a Love Music Hate Racism carnival in Victoria Park, Hackney, days before the Mayoral and Greater London Assembly elections in 2008. The 60000-strong audience was young, ethnically mixed, and very unlikely to vote BNP. Four days later, the BNP won its first seat on the GLA thanks to thousands of votes from white working class people in Barking, Dagenham and Havering.
Clearly, the drawback to this approach is that it makes no attempt to engage with the growing minority who do support the BNP. It also guarantees that anti-fascist campaigns are organised and staffed by people with no connections to the communities where the BNP are winning votes. Groups of young, middle class students knocking on doors in post-industrial Northern towns are unlikely to have a positive impact, and may well reinforce the perception among potential BNP voters that anti-fascists are social and cultural outsiders. As Searchlight now admits:
Class politics exists but not as we once knew it. The Labour Party, in line with many other centre-left parties across western European and Scandinavia, draws the bulk of its support from the middle class, public sector workers and minority communities, especially in the big cities. The BNP, on the other hand, is the voice of a section of the white working class, particularly in those areas of traditional industry that have experienced the greatest economic and social upheaval over the past twenty years.
Nick Lowles now advocates that anti-BNP campaigners “build alliances within the community” rather than bus in liberals from elsewhere. Indeed, since 2005, when the BNP got 19% of the vote in Barking and Dagenham at the General Election, Searchlight has talked about the need for anti-BNP campaigners to match the concern the Party shows for local “bread and butter” issues. And yet elsewhere on Searchlight’s website, we see evidence that they intend to persist with attempts to mobilise the anti-BNP majority. They urge readers to sign a petition stating that the BNP “does not represent them”. This can only be a tool to mobilise those who strongly oppose the BNP, since it cannot hope to have any impact on those who are tempted to vote for the Party.
One reason Searchlight is unlikely ever to fully embrace an anti-fascism rooted in working class community politics is that it has consistently refused to advocate support for any other party than Labour. In order to gain the trust of working class people, a local anti-BNP campaign would have to tackle the problems local people felt were most pressing. This, in turn, would involve opposition to the Labour Party, which in most far-right growth areas is blamed for contributing to many of these same social problems.
3) Taking the politics out of anti-fascism.
Perhaps the most significant defect of mainstream anti-fascism is the way it refuses to take on the BNP politically. Due to the need to maintain support from across the political spectrum, the politics of mainstream anti-fascism is defined by what it is opposed to, rather than what it supports. In practice this means anti-racism or simply anti-”extremism”. Such a stance inevitably becomes a defence of the liberal democratic status quo. The Commune recently reported on a TV appearance by UAF’s Weyman Bennett, in which he criticised the BNP on the grounds it would not be able to “restore the system to equilibrium” following the recession.
The SWP leaders who back UAF would argue they support a “twin track” strategy – campaigning against fascism through single issue anti-BNP groups, and providing an alternative to the establishment parties through their political work. The counter-argument is that by joining UAF or Searchlight campaigns, socialists are spending valuable time that could be devoted to patiently building support for a progressive working class alternative.
Since without single-issue anti-BNP campaigns both Searchlight and UAF would be out of business, we can expect them to continue to make the argument for the “twin track” strategy. Searchlight are at pains to insist on such an approach in a recent article:
The BNP success has led some to argue that we need to politicise anti-fascism, even to offer a political alternative to the BNP. While there are clearly public policy failings and a democratic deficit, it is not our job to fill this void. We must leave that to the political parties, old or new.
To justify this position, Searchlight refers to a YouGov poll that shows BNP voters have much more reactionary views on race and immigration than the average voter. These results show that while a Left alternative to the BNP might “might peel off some BNP supporters who feel economically marginalised, it will not in itself address the strongly held racist views of many BNP voters”, argues Lowles. These must be countered through specifically anti-racist campaigns that “dispel racist myths”.
What the YouGov survey results actually seem to show is that BNP voters are disproportionately working class, feel particularly hostile towards the political establishment and articulate their social grievances in terms of race. As Searchlight acknowledges, reactionary views on race have become so embedded that they are part of the culture in some working class communities. Roger Hewitt’s excellent study Routes of Racism showed how this process happens. He found that racist views among young people in South East London were sustained through a worldview that saw white working class people as victims of unfair treatment. He argued that the way to deal with this kind of “social racism” was to disrupt the “route” these racist views took. In practical terms, this meant tackling the causes of peoples’ grievances and helping to construct non-racist explanations for unfairness.
This is not simply a matter of chanting “unemployment and inflation are not caused by immigration/ bullshit, come off it/ the enemy is profit!” as the SWP are wont to. It will involve painstaking community work, and it must involve concessions to the way people in areas at risk to the BNP see the world. More urgently, it will require socialists to leave the safe world of liberal anti-fascism and begin to put down roots in working class communities.
Left Luggage on July 5, 2009
Tramlines Music Event and the lack of Anarchism:
July 5, 2009
Pretty much everything that underclassrising do these days is influenced by Anarchism. It’s a way of living, working and co-operating that is inherently radical, and it not only works against the things we oppose, but actively creates an alternative.
The history of progress is written in the blood of men and women who have dared to espouse an unpopular cause, as, for instance, the black man’s right to his body, or woman’s right to her soul.
When we want a haircut we do it ourselfs, (or nip to Sheffield Coolage and pay just a pound). We find scissors from the kitchen drawer and chop away, occasionally watching what we are doing in the mirror. When we get frustrated that magazines aimed at us are full of beauty tips and diet plans, we do it ourselfs and create an alternative. We wrote a zine and filled it with articals rants on Anarchism and Sheffield, graphics that kind of thing we called it collecatabelanorak. Then when we turn on the radio and realise that the pop songs of Jon Mcclure they are playing mean nothing to us, We find and become part of a scene that makes music addressing things we find important, not just being a reaction to the privalage circumstance.
The first time we became part of a coherent network of people working without the concept of profit was when we started writing zines. To make a zine you write whatever you want, turn it into a booklet and find a way of scamming photocopies, or get a social fund loan bung down to Jumma Print where the now demolished Trafalgar Works stood, fold it stapel and push into envolopes rushing for the midnight post. Then you swap it with other zine writers, give it to your friends, leave it on the bus… anything you want. Most zines are made in the writer’s bedroom, and most zines have no adverts. Those that do advertise other DIY enterprises – tiny record labels, badge making business run from someone’s living room and other zines.
The Anarchist ethic creates a community, teeming with ideas and enthusiasm. People do things because they are filled with passion, not for a payslip at the end of the week. Saturday 4 June we spent 9 hours at Sharrow Festival, takeing images. If we was being paid to do, we would slack off, cut corners and complain constantly. If we was being paid less than £7/hr we would probably quit. But the idea of a new world a diverse Sheffield, a place to try and realise some of our ideas and a space that would help nurture the independent music scene was enough to keep us walking round when our legs were hurting, our stomach growling from hunger.
To us, music without a Anarchist ethic has no soul. It is music used as a means to an end – the end of fame, or money, or influence. we believe in music as an end in itself. True, some of our favourite bands are pushing an agenda – of feminism, say, or anti-capitalism. But we believe in political music too, and corporate bands preaching politics are like companies branding their sweatshop t-shirts rebellious and counter-culture. And staying independent as a band is in itself is a political act, because it is a rejection of the temptation of money and convenience in favour of integrity and autonomy. It is refusing to be sold and manipulated and turned into a product. Because there is no suggestion that major labels have any interest in music beyond its earning potential. They are businesses and businesses seek profit. This is not our opinion – it is how things are. EMI does not chase say Reverend And The Makers with a chequebook because there music makes them feel alive, or because there lyrics seared to the very soul of the A&R man at there gig. EMI are after your band because they think that you will make a strong enough brand to make them some money.
And let it be known that if a band does sign to a major label, it is not the case that it is their personal choice, or their luck, or none of my business. Because every DIY band that signs to a major is standing on the backs of the thousands of people who stay independent. They owe every penny of their royalties to the people who worked for free to let them be heard in the first place. The people who put them on, gave them their sofa to sleep on, reviewed them in their zine, lost money putting their record out,drew their artwork and supported them by going to gigs.
Money corrupts and it pollutes communities like bleach in a stream. Bands who choose the money are placing it above sincerity, passion and belief. Zines that take major label advertising negate every word that they print. Anything that you write, play, sing or draw once you have chosen the money is meaningless because it is now a product, and you are creating a brand instead of art.
We work hard to contribute to the anarchist thoughts, because we believe in it, and it repays me many times over by inspiring us, entertaining us and giving us hope. We will not work to help market music, to promote a brand, to help someone, somewhere makes a large profit. Major label bands have chosen their path and they can work within the world that they have opted for; a world of competition and exploitation; a sanitised world of immaculate dressing rooms and high ticket prices; a world of distanced fans and idolisation.
Our city is filled with venues for these bands, because they make money, likewise those involved with Tramlines Music Event
DQ
Frog and Parrot
Washington
Green Room
The Bowery
Harley
Bungalows and Bears
Shakespeare
Stock Room
Penelopes
The Earl
Grapes
Cremorne
Corporation
West St Live
Casbah
Forum
Union
and there will always be space for people who want to make money. It is the other people who have to fight – those who are motivated not by money but by their music and their community. Capitalism makes no space for alternatives we create them – we just take it. And when we oppose capitalism and its fetishisation of money, we must embrace that which undermines it. And the Anarchist Ethic, with its currency of energy, does undermine it. useing music as part of that resistance.
‘its not enough to merely look like a revolutionary’
Being involved in music means a hundred different things to a hundred different people. To some it is nothing more than an amazing sound; to others rebellion; and at the furthest end of the spectrum, a means of resistance in our daily lives. For us it is the latter two that interest us most, and is how we have conceptualised our involvement. From a need in our youth to push against the boundaries that suffocated; to try and express a frustration and disaffection that we couldn’t articulate; to a growing awareness that the world was unjust and the fundamentals inherently wrong. It is a system we didn’t want to be a part of, and music gave us the means of expressing our rejection of it.
To us, our lives were more than being an economic input in the capitalist system: an obedient consumer, and a passive citizen. Surely there must be more to life than this; more to being a human being than eating, sleeping, working and consuming? Human potentiality must…it must extend beyond this?
The music we liston to (allright we like main streem stuff) is about creating counterculture – counter to the mainstream culture that systematically de-humanises us. It’s our big ‘FUCK YOU’ – fuck your rules, traditions, roles, morals and greed. This isn’t what we are about, we demand more, both for others and ourselves. But as this counterculture is something that will never be given to us, we strive to create it ourselves. The anarchsit ethic is a clear expression, within our limited means, that we don’t need those with power and all the resources; we can do what ever we want. And when we do exactly this, this is what becomes our resistance. No matter what it is we do, it is the start of taking back control. As music is our passion, and gives an immediate means of self-expression, and of drawing people around us, this is where we start.
It is not a bad place to start, either. Music, and art more generally, throughout history, has been the means through which humans have communicated ideas and values, tried to convey and construct meaning, and articulate the inarticulate. It is through music and art that we most potently define and express who we are. Therefore, those that control music and art, control the means by which we define ourselves, the construction of meaning itself and the values and ideas we express. Without authentic communication of meaning, we are no more than inanimate objects. By taking control of the production of our music, this is our start of an authentic discourse on what it means to be us.
You may ask yourself, as we have done countless times, other than as a means of self expression, how else is music a form of resistance? We hang out at gigs and buy records and zines!? To us it is recognising the context with in which we do this. Within a culture that suffocates, we create space to explore ourselves; within a culture that engenders ignorance, we question; within a culture that causes pain, we care; where there is conformity we aim to encourage diversity. We can ask people to dump their conditioning of age, gender, ethnicity and sexuality at the door and participate in a space where this is all meaningless, where there is only one identity, and that is to be human. In an alienating world, we strive for community.
Do you remember how the first gig made you feel? The ache in your stomach, the tingles from the bassline down your spine, the sudden feeling of power and of belonging. The liberating feeling that you had stumbled on something that was more important to you than career, success and material possession? The very fact that this meant more to you than all these things is a manifestation of your resistance: you are no longer enslaved by society’s demands and expectations. They work hard, consume hard, where as we live hard: play music; organise shows; write zines; agitate; express ourselves and strive to be completely out of control.
It is easy to think that this a small and only ever a symbolic gesture drowned in the enormity of the problem. But reclaiming your life, or even just aspects of it, and taking control is more than symbolic: you only have one life – one chance to be, so why not do it to its fullest, unfettered by societies limitations? On the other hand, think of our networks around the world. music is global, and beyond this, the idea of an anarchist counterculture and creating forms of resistance in our lives is truly global and timeless.
Music can be a form of direct action –(Reclaim the Streets) we take action to create alternatives; and when viewed in this way it can become a powerful feeling. It can be something that extends beyond our own lifestyles, a tool we can use in the wider arena. We can use it to make real and lasting change, to not only give us the lives we desire, but to help others achieve their desires as well and create the world they want to live in. the kids will have their say: the philosophy of all ages shows.
There’s not actually alot of writing about the concept of All Ages gigs and to be honest the ethic may be taken for granted by many people involved in independent music or for some, it may not be an issue at all. Besides “All Ages” as a practice and method may be wrapped up within the DIY ethic for many, but there can be subtle differences between the two. Over the years many punk events have had age restrictions, particularly in the UK due to them taking place in rooms above pubs or in pub bars themselves. Infact many subcultural events are wrapped up within the concept of ‘pub culture’ and for many organisers and gig goers the pub is a vital component of the show but need it be so, Tramlines Music Event is much the same the only good thing is it is free.
With the space people created at Matilda for gigs people did create a space for everyone with the concept of ‘All Ages’ events being a practical realisation. While many 16 year olds have managed to sneak into pubs for gigs, All Ages events specifically open the barriers to youths that have no chance of looking 18. Music should be accessible for all and that should include music in the live setting. It seems strange that there should be a barrier to accessing music. Why should music be limited to people of a certain age. Worthy issues such as equality, prejudice, sexism and racism may be enunciated by our fellow scenesters yet the issue of age or access to underground music by those younger than “pub age” is not touched upon.
When we think of the concept of all ages shows, bands such as Crass and Minor Threat come to mind. Not only did both bands distance themselves from the corporate rock dominated music scene, they also both pursued an alternative route to the nihilism of thier contemporary punk rock scene and embarked on an inclusivity that included an awareness of youth involvement. Both Crass and Minor Threat performed in alternative spaces such as church halls, squats, Trade Union centres, Workers Clubs – anywhere that an event could be held. People realised that with Matilda it did become another such space that Anarchism did thrive and youth was encouraged to become involved.
Abridged from http://www.matilda.aktivix.org
projectsheffield