'Hijacked by Anarchists!'

Look, I really don't care if people want to smash up shops or fight cops, but its making it difficult to talk to people about anti-capitalism on the buses home. So next time people want to have their insurrectionist fun, can they please dress up as EDL or something?

Unless of course I'm mistaken, and trashing top shop marks the beginning of the revolution, in which case go right ahead.

to be perfectly honest, despite all the forum chats highlighting the impotence of the black bloc tactic, pretty much all the anarchist groups somehow met up, blocced up and split off from the rest of the march

Although in this bloc i did see some clear non-anarchist students attracted by the militancy

The thing is yes all this smashing up of shops happened but clearly none of it got reported by the media so the police were not seen as "good" or "bad" by the rest of the population - so really what did it achieve? IThe only place I seem to find any links or any reports about the violence that happened is through anarchist websites and I am yet to find a quote which says it was anarchists particularly - I have heard ani-capitalist groups (which yes includes but is not exclusive to anarchism) and UnCut too but NOT anarchists, although I am sure someone will point some out! At the end of the day, it got anger out but I really don't think the whole "Battle of Britain" and "Occupy London" has made any impact at all. Personally, I think tactics may need to be re-thought. The ironic thing too is that anyone who did get arrested (and I don't believe it was a lot of people) - if they do end up getting charged for criminal damage or something, they will probably be the ones which have to clear the mess up! IF the government have a re-think (which is doubtful) about their cuts or tax dodgers etc I think it is doubtful that the rest of the population will see that it was because "anti-capitalists caused a riot" and shut down shops etc. They will think it was the TUC march that did it - and to be honest I have to say I really can't see how any of the actions by anti-capitalists will have caused a decision change in the government after yesterday or cause anyone else to consider anarchism as an option. Again, I think tactics need to be changed. This sort of direct action, in my opinion, only works once. Catch the police by surprise - not advertise the occupation of Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square on the internet when the police will be prepared for this. It might seem that, yes, you got the shops closed down but the police I presume would have known your intention and I think you might have played right into their hands! Time to take direct action to the next level I think!

Are you x joking? So you relate a very targeted attack against banks, retailers and symbols of wealth on the level as an EDL march??!! Your a x for saying that!

admin: please keep things polite, even if we agree with your sentiment

Actually that provokes a topic for debate. I mean I honestly cannot understand the EDL thoughts as I'm sure you can't... but these people exist. Why do they think like that? Can we really "blame" government for that, or banks or rich people? How do we eradicate their ideologies? Perhaps direct action to the EDL protests would get more support for anarchists? It would be a complete blood-bath, granted, but surely surely surely even the Conservatives and Labour voters must hate the EDL more than anarchists? Surely... or am I just being naive?

Except the BBC all of last night.

Except the BBC most of last night, who were showing some people standing round something burning and kept refering to them as 'anarchists' despite the fact that they seemed to be waving a hammer and sickle flag (making me think that they're more likely to be some M-L youth). As there's no real contextualisation of different phases of action - the M-Ls (and anarchists?) burning shit = the people (including anarchists?) who 'vandalised' Anne Summers and Fortnums = the people who occupied Fortnums (UKuncut?) = the people (including anarchists?) in Traf Square last night - anyone relying on the BBC to provide their viewpoint will be left with the impression this was all the same people who were very busy over about 10 hours.

Duly pointed.

BBC was quoting 135 last night as far as I remember, but it was late and I was tired.

But was it intended to? Does anyone seriously think that the government will have its mind changed by people demonstrating? What I hope it has done, at least for some people, is convince them that there a lot of pissed off people out there and that more organising, discussion and co-ordination is the way forward.

And I think we need to discuss what exactly that next level is, how we get there, how we involve the huge numbers of people who are currently pinning their faith on Labour or the unions to lead the resistance to the austerity programme, how we respond to international moves like the strikes in Wisconsin or the recent strikes in France, linking to the student occupations and the lectures's strikes, etc etc. How do we link all these aspects of the anger about, and struggle against, austerity (which I guess in the last analysis we all see as the struggle against capitalism and the state) so that the working class begins to consciously wield its own power?

I agree with this. What did those people - or those who support them - think they've actually achieved from all of that particular 'spectacle'? I spoke to friends and work colleagues at hyde park and although not exactly condemnatory, their reactions were along the lines of 'oh well, what do you expect from anarchists?'

These events were in stark contrast to Millbank where the direct actions came from within the movement on the day - here they were clearly 'something else, happening somewhere else', completely divorced from the main demo itself. When alf (and others, such as slothjabber) tried to put forward the idea on these boards that there needed to be some discussion about action, about what to do etc... all that they got back was a stunning silence. So, once again, all we have is a tiny group of individuals undertaking 'action by deed'.

Actually the EDL strike me as being, politically, more of a force exactly because they don't go around smashing up 'banks, retailers and symbols of wealth'.

Indeed. A load of shit, based on what? Were you present at either, or are you just regurgitating the media's regurgitation of police press releases through the lens of your tedious ideology?

I notice none of the last 3 posts have answered, or even attempted to, my question, so I'll repeat it:

I admired your sprinting skills yesterday.

Plenty. Will write something up later. Briefly it was good to see some of the militancy from last year carry over.

Ok, I'll look forward to reading that.

There will always be people outraged with militant actions, there will always be people that disagree - fair enough, though they have to justify their (in)action, they have to justify why marching and not smashing is better - I've yet to hear a convincing argument. Until then people will either choose to do one or the other.

I can't tell if I actually have any disagreement with you here or if you just expressed yourself badly but I think dividing protesters into 'marchers' and 'smashers' and saying 'I think smashing is better' is just the inverse of The Guardian's line.. we're all facing these cuts, we're all protesting and different people will be up for doing different things.. I don't see a need for us to choose one or the other..

I think you just made my day!

Spot on.

I've been a trade union activist for over 20 years. I had a tear in my eye as I watched fellow working people and union members turning up in such huge numbers making their opposition to the government clear.

It was a demo. It was supposed to set an agenda and make the public aware that we're not going to accept the cuts. It wasn't a revolutionary moment.

Those red'n'black lot (why do they all dress the same, its weird, like some cult) 'joined' the march at various points (Piccadilly mainly) and made gigantic pricks of themselves by such predictable and irrelevant acts of violence that were utterly meaningless in the bigger picture. Throwing paint and smoke bombs at the Ritz does absolutely zero to further any revolutionary aim.

What it did do however was enable the media to focus on the violence and avoid the issues in question. And, yes, they would have covered it well without the violence. The media have been all over the unions and TUC who organised the march for weeks in advance of this. But now they're ignoring us in the trade union movement and giving all the attention to the perpetrators of violence.

What the actions of the various show offs, self-obssessed and selfish bellends that decided to play revolution for the day managed to achieve was to directly support the objectives of the media. And to detract from the social movement against this government.

Oh and they also managed to scare the shit out of some familes and kids that got caught in the crush outside Fortnums in the process.

Well done. I hope they are very proud of themselves.

I think that some anarchists believe THEY are making a change by causing violence and smashing up property. Yes I know, property is theft, but the point being is that not everyone sees it that way and the majority of people do not see it that way. There will always be a counter argument against it so by destroying property and using violence I think it will actually make right wing politics more favourable with the majority. Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem are all now right wing parties. No-one actually expected the government to change their decision because of the TUC march but it was a way of expressing opposition to their decisions - but how many people actually oppose it and have a better solution? Riots might have made a change in the past but I think now it will only ive more substance to right wing arguments. I know anti-capitalists argue that this form of action is necessary but if you ask the "average" person about anarchism they will probably speak of violence, anger, negativity and chaos. They cannot see how an anarchist society can be structured without hierachy because the actions seem contradictory. If you can 'reason' with them and explain to them that they would have more freedom and the social issues such as some crime would probably not be present in an anarchist society, it would be (I think) a far more attractive option and then anarchist protests may well be supported enough to actually overthrow the government. I just don't think the present tactic is working and if it doesn't work it needs to be changed. I know, I know, this is what the anti-capitalists are trying to do, but I just think it needs to be done differently now. What worked 20 years ago or 30 years ago doesn't necessarily work today. That being said, if you spoke to EDL members about their beliefs and policies they would probably tell you that the problem is 'uncivilised nations and religions' are the cause of war (well, I don't know exactly what they would say because I can't actually agree with them) and how England should be a pure seperate nation or something like that. If they can give good argument they can suck people into believing them. My point is I don't know EXACTLY what they would say because I have some strong views to their extreme but if someone is toying with politics however and doesn't have a strong opinion and they are met with a strong, forceful debater from EDL then I expect they will go along with them! I don't believe people will give anti-capitalists a chance to speak either if they are associated with violence. Also, I read a comment yesterday where someone said that the people complaining about tax dodgers and sitting in the buildings probably didn't pay their tax anyway - so therefore it must be coming across as a hypocrytical ideology. Everyone has different life experiences and sees the world differently so to prove to people that they DON'T need government I think you have to show how the world will work and at the moment, for various reasons, all people are seeing is chaos and negativity and destruction whenever anti-capitalists are protesting and I think perhaps therein lies the problem. They won't be 'taught' about anarchist communities that do work and I wa certainly always given the impression that left wing politics can't work because of the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union - but as we know - that's a whole different kettle of fish! The point is some people will go along with that idea and that's it! The government will now probably invent new laws too after yesterday in order to arrest protestors so what inevitably will happen is that even more human rights will get taken away but pro-capitalists will view this as a necessity in order to clamp down on "anti-social behaviour" and therefore it will make 'direct action' even more necessary next time but will get an even more negative response from others and eventually anarchism could cease to exist. I don't think it's by any coincidence that many left wing groups have turned into 'parties' and are actually growing by the day in my area whereas certainly the groups who call themselves "anarchist" rather than "socialist" have got smaller in my area. Just a thought - I'm sure that will stir up some debate.

Well then, they must be naive idiots who could use a bit of political education about building mass movements.

Umm, I'm on the other side of the world and not entirely certain whom I'm adressing this to, but if 'they' were 'somewhere else' how did

?

No, that's clearly not what I was saying. But if you do want to do that stuff, try to get it associated with the EDL rather than the anarchists, because most working class people see images of fighting cops and smashing stuff and want nothing to do with those people, so it would be better if they thought they were EDL not anarchists. Most of them of course weren't anarchists but there's always a few black and red flags about. Make them England flags instead, and you'll be doing a big favour to those of us who want to persuade people that the fash and capitalism are the problem, not "anarchist thugs".

As I say, I've no problem with people doing that stuff, but since its not part of the class struggle as far as I can tell, and promoting communist ideas is (albeit only when material conditions are right) then let's make sure the smashing shit doesn't get in the way of the (admitidly more tedious) propaganda work.

From a union activist this is pretty rich.

There is a difference between marches and smashers but I'm not sure it's a fixed one or a negative one.
I was on the official march and as we were part of a community contingent we stuck it out for a couple hours and put up with police stopping the march to let traffic through, guiding us into a bottleneck and then making us go in a circle so in two hous we move about 10 mins walk. At this point we gave up and went to see what was happening. I think a march can be effective but one that is so well-marshalled (by police, stewards and demnstrators) is useless. It is ignored, nothing more to be said. I think a fair few 'marchers' would have been happy to be 'smashers' and a number of 'smashers' intended to be 'marchers'.
Smashing stuff up might not be particularly effective but at least it brings some actual attention to the problem and at least it is a measure, albeit not always a productive one, of resistance.

And speaking of the occupation. I only know one person who was there and joined in on the way. It might have been a planned activity but it wasn't caried out by people divorced from the march.

I agree with what has been said above, tactically it might not be the best idea but these big marches achieve nothing. Ed Miliband was addressing the people in Hyde Park, what did he lead with? "Hi, we'd have basically done the same things but we're not quite so obviously privileged and we are slightly less ecstatically happy to cut people's services. Vote Labour"They let us have marches for the same reason they let us vote, it makes no difference. I'd prefer to see occupations of government buildings but you can't always get what you want. If anyone was wondering the last of the march got to Hyde park after 6pm.

If you're saying that ritualistic property destruction isn't going to stop the cuts then you're right. That's how the media portray it, but is that all it was?

The Millbank riot was also portrayed in this way, but then it helped bring about the most effective and politically sophisticated demos that we've seen for a long time.

I'd agree that big marches achieve nothing in themselves. However, they do get loads of people talking to each other, feeling like they're not the only ones who hate the government, feeling like their not the only one's who think labour are a shit alternative, talking about what can happen next and so on. That is powerful. Obviously if everyone just goes home and does nothing (such as with Iraq) then marches mean nothing, but if they go home and are more willing to strike or to oppose their local school getting turned into an academy or whatever, that's great. When half the talk on the bus home is 'those fuckers are making us look bad' there's less time for 'what are we going to do about our local school?' and the tone of the conversation will be less militant. The marches act as big displays of class unity and a chance for people (including many who weren't there themselves) to galvinise themselves as workers against this government and, to an extent, capital. That's a not enough, but it is good.

I think the main issue is that there are a growing number of people (not yet a majority but also many more than say five years ago) who want to 'do something' - who realise marches don't achieve anything. Yesterday demonstrated that there was a willingness to 'go beyond' the confines of normal protest.

I think the question is, where do we go with that energy? The anarchist movement as a whole is growing in strength (even from this time last year), but that strength also necessitates us asking the big question: 'what next?'

But all in all I think it was a good day out for the Red 'n' Black. As for the media portraying anarchists as march-hijacking hoodlums: they'd probably have done that anyway, even if nothing had really happened at all.

So I don't think March 26th ended up being an end in itself... but hopefully it can be a stepping stone to bigger and better things.

We need to be careful about these sort of 'offical' labour movement organised demos. I think the TUC and the Met police carefully designed their tactics so that any violence would be attributed to a 'violent' minority. The TUC leadership want to sink the prospect of effective street protests (like the student demos) they cant control. That means they'll happily work with media forces usually hostile to workers direct actions like strikes and occupations.

There are still 4 years left for the present government to implement its' ideologically driven attack on the working class. The cuts are going to get far more painful than what has just passed. Personally I think the real war will be in the work places and communites. The 'organised' working class has no choice but to build rank and file controlled organisations independent from the TUC (like the Egypian working class is in the process of doing) if it is ever going to stand a chance of holding on to some of its prize assets like the NHS.

Because they mobbed up separately and then infiltrated the main body of the march along Piccadilly, launching into some violent and some non-violent direct action in the middle of a densely packed march of people who weren't up for that sort of thing.

The marchers caught up in the fracas outside the Ritz and Fortnums were NOT impressed. Some scared, some angry.

Just to add to what I've just said above, did anyone else notice George Osborne (during his parlamentary budget statment) set out the governments intensions regarding workers abilities to turn to legal instruments during or after workplace disputes? Coupled with stopping strike action through courts,this could signal a 'forced' return to wild cat actions and other direct non trade union mediated tactics.

How were the student demos effective? They took a lot of effort) to achieve very little, if anything. There have been some effective student actions, but they have been within given universities because that is a level at which students can plausibly take direct action. Students can't take direct action against the state on a national level (in the UK, at the moment), so trying to change legislative decisions was always a long shot. For the same reason, I agree with you that at this stage the struggle needs to be in the workplace, that's where class struggle is centered, after all. I think there is some prospect of some of the TUC unions being of some value in defending, for example, the NHS, so I wouldn't totally give up on Unison etc. but obviously you are right that rank and file organisation needs to go beyond official and legal union channels. Also, the situation in Egypt was different. The unions were beholden to the ruling party and state, here they are beholden to an opposition party and the state, so they still have some utility, but only in as much as labour is better than the tories, i.e. not much.

[There is a difference between marches and smashers but I'm not sure it's a fixed one or a negative one.

--- Its not necessarily a fixed one, I agree. At times, anger spills into trouble and that just happens. But this was different. It was orchestrated by a body that was literally separate from the march up to the point they decided to infiltrate. If you want to be part of a mass movement, why did all the red and black lot pile into Piccadilly Circus from Shaftesbury Avenue. Why keep yourselves away from the masses?

I was on the official march and as we were part of a community contingent we stuck it out for a couple hours and put up with police stopping the march to let traffic through, guiding us into a bottleneck and then making us go in a circle so in two hous we move about 10 mins walk.

--- The route was one that is normally used. There were no circles. Bottlenecks occur when you have 300,000 people worming their way through narrow streets. Is everything a conspiracy to you lot?

Smashing stuff up might not be particularly effective but at least it brings some actual attention to the problem and at least it is a measure, albeit not always a productive one, of resistance.

--- No it doesn't. This is exactly my point. The story started as "hundreds of thousands demonstrate against the cuts" but then changed to "rioters battle with police in Piccadilly". These actions actually diverted attention from the real issues. The actions of the 'smashers' was a gift to the media, they were a massive help to a right wing press looking to marginalise protest and dissent.

And speaking of the occupation. I only know one person who was there and joined in on the way. It might have been a planned activity but it wasn't caried out by people divorced from the march.

--- I saw them all join in at Piccadilly, following some argy bargy with the police on Shaftesbury Avenue and then over at Regent Street.

I agree with what has been said above, tactically it might not be the best idea

--- Exactly. Counter-productive idiocy assisting the government and the media.

but these big marches achieve nothing.

--- Yes, they do. I mean, they clearly don't change government policy. But that's not their point. They show that people aren't prepared to take things. They set agendas. They demonstrate to the wider public that dissent is out there and you can join us. Opposition to the cuts is a mainstream notion and we can use this massive demo as a platform to enhance all our local campaigns. That is, or should be, the message. Its one that 'the masses' for want of a better word respond to rather than "come and join us throwing paint at hotels".

Ed Miliband was addressing the people in Hyde Park

--- A big mistake, in my book. The trade union movement should have been making clear what their alternative is. Not the Labour Party's. Again, we let the media change the story to "what is Ed Miliband's alternative" ... it was our demo, not his.

My mum and i were arguing, she said they were just thugs and not political, when i pointed out that thugs wouldnt bother going to a political protest but rather hurt innocent people she went, no they were shouting at the cameras and smashing thing, and we will have to pay for them.

Makes anticapitalist teachings hard