This is a pamphlet about the London Mayday Guerrilla Gardening action - how it was planned, what happened, what went right, what went wrong, and a discussion of wider issues raised by the day. It is a separate project from 'Reflections on Mayday.' Who the editorial collective are, and why they've put this pamphlet together is explained in the Introduction below.
This pamphlet has been hastily put together by a few people from London Reclaim The Streets (RTS) who made up the Mayday Guerrilla Gardening 'locations group'. What you'll find written in the following pages does not represent THE voice of RTS, but voices from RTS, and as such is necessarily subjective, reflecting only a sample of the wide diversity of views found in RTS.
Copies of the first draft of this pamphlet were distributed at a weekly RTS meeting, and the same text was circulated on RTS email list, ALLSORTS (an activists e-mail information list) as well as the Mayday e-mail discussion list. Everyone was invited to make additions and/or comments.
The locations group was made up of a handful of people of mixed gender, background, and wildly varying levels of experience in organising mass actions. Most of us had not worked closely together before, and all became part of the locations group reluctantly due to the amount of work we suspected we'd be taking on, and personal fears and worries about the 'war of attrition' the state had declared on RTS after J18. As it was, most of the group worked full-time on the action in the eight weeks running up to Mayday.
The motivation behind producing this pamphlet is primarily to clarify what actually happened on Mayday, what had been intended, and how the whole action had been planned by RTS. We feel that 'post-action write-ups' should be a standard part of the process of mass actions, and as such this pamphlet was inspired in part by the Seattle 'logistics zine' and the pamphlet that followed the Birmingham G8 Global Street Party, May'98.
We hope that this will promote discussion both within RTS and the wider activist community about what we can learn from our experiences of Mayday. Hopefully, this pamphlet will also go some way in answering various questions, comments and criticisms that have been directed at RTS since Mayday, whether in the form of letters that have arrived at the RTS office and e-mails posted on the world wide web, or comments made in meetings and private conversations. Perhaps it will also serve to counter some of the inevitable misinformation spewed out by mainstream corporate media and political machinery about both the events of Mayday and RTS.
Mayday has always been a day for peoples festivities across the globe, be it pagan celebrations of fertility or international workers day. Mayday 2000 was suggested as an anti capitalist global day of action by people in involved in the Peoples Global Action (see www.agp.org for more info) an inspiring network of grassroots non hierarchical groups who believe in direct action and building alternatives to capitalism. Mayday 2000 was to build on the momentum developed by global days of action over the past few years such as the global street part anti World Trade (WTO) actions of May 98, the June 18th (J18) actions in financial centres 1999, and the November 30th (N30) actions to coincide with the WTO ministerial in Seattle. It was also a way more eco/anarchist groups might converge with traditional labour groups - the red, green and black coming together. The idea got PGA backing but never quite took of as strongly as J18 and N30 had done.
Although RTS has been a key part of Peoples Global Action, we did not immediately feel that post J18/N30 it would be appropriate to take on another mass event in London. At the Earth First ! Summer Gathering '99, both N30 and Mayday were brought up and there seemed to be a lot of people who felt that the "positive " aspect of Mayday , i.e. its tradition as creative celebration rather than mere protest, would be an important thing for the movement to do, seeing as we are good at saying "no" to just about every aspect of our society but not "yes , this is what we want, this is the society we envision." In late Autumn '99 the Anarchist Communist Federation and people who had put together a conference in Bradford on Mayday 1999, put out a glossy leaflet advertising a 3 day conference of anarchist ( later changed to anti-capitalist) ideas and actions in London leading up to a "mass action" on mayday which would "blow the roof off the millennium dome". At this point no one within the Earth First!/ Reclaim the Streets network had said they were prepared to organise a mass action.
Then the months passed and the day got closer, the media was already hyping Mayday in Nov. '99 as the next huge anti capitalist event etc.. There seemed to be high expectations about it from both within and without the activist community and still no one was in RTS felt they wanted to take it on. This was for many reasons, burnout, not wanting to jump from one mass spectacular to another but sorting out our own structures ways of working first, fear of state repression after J18/N30 etc.
It was not until January 2000 that ideas started to be seriously discussed within RTS, about taking something on. This was partly due to us worrying that if no one organised anything then thousands of people might turn up and not have anything to do and either be sitting ducks for the cops or get very bored and the potential that it could result in people resorting to unfocused "violence " (as opposed to focused economic sabotage.) and this is where the story of this leaflet begins....
The entire decision making process took place secretly over the internet - ha, ha ! Only joking.. actually it was organised by an office full of Camden intellectual trustafarians - still kidding!
Most decisions that created the RTS Mayday action, were made in three different meeting 'spaces' ; weekly RTS meetings (held every Tuesday evening in a London pub), 'subgroup' meetings (groups established in the weekly RTS meetings that meet at other places at other times), and a few 'Mayday 2000' action meetings.
A number of crucial decisions were made over a series of Tuesday night RTS meetings at the Arsenal Tavern. After first reaching consensus that we would be part of organising an action for Mayday our attention turned to what exactly that action should be. Brainstorming within RTS in small groups produced various dreams and visions - the three most popular and talked about proposals were; something at and around the Millennium Dome, something based on the Monopoly board game (e.g. different actions at the different locations marked on the Monopoly board), and Guerrilla Gardening (taking a piece of urban land and transforming it into a community garden). Eventually a weekly RTS meeting of around 50 people meeting came to consensus that the RTS action would be Guerrilla Gardening and for a little while the Monopoly idea was discussed as happening alongside. The reasons people gave for choosing guerrilla gardening were varied while for many the Monopoly idea was too complicated to organise over such a short space of time with too few people.
Meanwhile, a few people from RTS were making trips to Mayday 2000 action meetings, in which they could information share and co-ordinate with people from other groups interested in planning their own actions for Mayday. These meetings were mainly spent discussing a meeting place for actions on Mayday. Many of the people at these meetings were in favour of one meeting place from which people could then go out from on their chosen actions. A common view was that if RTS had a separate meeting place for the RTS action then other actions would be low on numbers. After an afternoons discussion, the initial meeting place for all actions was announced as Bond Street. The following week, almost an entire RTS meeting was taken up discussing this decision, as many people felt strongly that it would be a bad idea for a meeting place for Guerrilla Gardening due to the fact that it is on Oxford Street and at the time Bond Street was chosen it had not been decided that the RTS action was going to be Guerrilla Gardening. Oxford Street seemed inappropriate for the obvious reason that it is a busy shopping street and would likely lead both participants and police to believe that gardening was just a cover for economic sabotage against high street stores which of course it wasn't. People wanted to make it clear that the action really was Gardening so that people would be under no illusions and therefore come along with very different expectations on the day. Many people in RTS also felt that the Guerrilla Gardening action should have its own meeting place, distinct from other actions, again to avoid confusion and a potentially impossible job of splitting the crowd up into the particular action groups that they may want to go on. It was agreed in that meeting that we needed a new meeting place. Discussions continued, both in RTS meetings and Mayday 2000 action meetings. Eventually, after a long and sometimes tense process, and a number of alternative meeting places, Parliament Square was announced as the meeting place for the RTS Guerrilla Gardening action (for more details see 'Choosing The Location' below).
Initially RTS wanted Mayday to be an action involving lots of groups, not simply RTS. This followed from J18 which aimed for a similar idea - i.e. lots of groups working on autonomous actions in the morning and then RTS organising the carnival in the afternoon. On June 18th, although there were numerous totally inspiring autonomous actions, the mass RTS action still dominated the media and became the main focus for the activist community. This time there was a desire to build a real coalition and for us all to work together on numerous actions. We made a date for an open meeting inviting other groups to join and discuss possibilities for actions. This meeting took place but it failed to move forward with any real plans as a coalition. This was partly due to the presence of the SWP who were trying to jump on the "anti-capitalist" bandwagon which had totally taken them by surprise on J18. They wanted everyone to join the traditional left march on the day, for obvious reasons we wanted to do something a bit different and a lot more imaginative ! The winter Earth First! gathering had agreed that an RTS action on Mayday would not be a national EF ! action. While some groups planned to organise regional actions, other groups felt that Mayday was an inappropriate time for actions, though this contradicts the previous Summer's EF! gathering where there was strong support in a post J18 discussion where the vast majority were in favour of N30 and Mayday being the next dates for national mass actions. For some people this change in opinion was in part due to J18 and N30.
The picture from the Mayday 2000 action meetings was that other actions would be going on in London on Mayday. As a result of these meetings RTS initially understood, and hoped, that the guerrilla gardening would be a local London action, attended only by those in and around London and interested in gardening. This brings up the whole problem of being a London group, i.e. working in the capital. Inevitably any action we do tends to have national significance even if we try to localise it ! In hindsight it seemed naive to think that any action with RTS name on it and taking place in London, could remain "local". It also became clear that other groups were not working on actions in London and that the RTS action would once again become the main focus.
The many reasons why GUERRILLA GARDENING was chosen by RTS for Mayday included :
Further discussion in both weekly RTS meetings and subgroup meetings led to firmer ideas about the nature of the Guerrilla Gardening action. In no particular order ;
The following subgroups were set up within the weekly RTS meetings. Each subgroup deals with different aspects of the Guerrilla Gardening action. The subgroups that came into being, their jobs, responsibilities, and comments on their (dys)function are listed below.
Logistics: this would involve garden planning, sorting out the public assembly, maypole making, toilets, food etc. This group, while being completely open, was again only a handful of people and therefore limited in what it could take on because of that plus there was an unstable turnover of people in the earlier meetings.
Locations group: choosing a location and facilitation of crowd movement (see below for more details).
Networking: Organising mailouts, and generally letting individuals and groups know what RTS was planning, and bringing more people on board from outside groups, like permaculture designers and other groups not normally associated with RTS events as well as those who are. This ended up being one or two individuals rather than a group as well as everyone with the wider network talking to usual contacts.
Tat: a couple of people to co-ordinate vehicles and collection of material needed for props, gardening etc.. including compost, seeds, toilets, signs, saplngs etc
Entertainment: to invite musicians, poets, jugglers, artists, performers and anything else entertaining apart from the gardening itself. Again this group was extremely small and faced an uphill struggle because many people were nervous about bringing instruments along after J18.
Props: Again an awful lot of work for a very small amount of people. A lot of time was devoted to making Bill and Ben, two very large and beautiful Flowerpot Men.
Banners and climbers: A handful of people worked on banners, with less regular help from another handful of people. Luckily enough people were up for climbing, and many assiduously practised their lampost technique.
Agit-prop : A healthy sized group working on 'Maybe', the spoof newspaper which was to be given out over the weekend before the action.
RTS media Group: There was initially an RTS media group who have now become an independent evolving network of activists, artists, and DIY media workers committed to using all available technologies to support direct action and to promote alternatives to corporate media.
Fundraising: loose groups of people involved in the organisiation of excellent benefits, shaking tins, busking etc
*There was an awful lot of overlap with most people being involved in more than one group. Some people ended up having to devote more time than they wanted to one activity at the expense of missing out on other stuff.
As plans developed and time passed by, two things became clear:
Gardening tat and the Samba band would come in with the special Critical Mass that was meeting at Hyde Park Corner at 10am. During the Critical Mass, the Samba band and those carrying tat would be protected by 'safety banners' (see 'What went Right' - below for more information about 'safety banners'). Bags of fliers with packets of seeds attached would be given to people on the Critical Mass to hand out to passers-by. Dozens of Samba shakers (two tin cans taped together and filled with dried beans) were made so lots of people on the Critical Mass could join in making music with the Samba band. Around 11am the Critical Mass would dance and slowly cycle its way to Parliament Square where it would meet up with everyone else. Banners would then go up, green flags would be put in the centre of the square, custom made spoof police line tape (which read: Reclaim the Streets) would be stuck between lampposts and other handy surfaces to mark the boundary of the garden and the Guerrilla Gardening would begin. While the gardening proceeded the maypole would be erected, organic loos built, and loud speakers and mic`s set up around the square. The end of the day was to be decided by a public assembly; with suggestions of ending in with a chill-out party and sound system in a park. Simple really!
If the cops had sealed off the square or looked intent to clear everyone out before any gardening had started, then red flags would guide the crowds away to plant all over London, "anywhere and everywhere".
The locations group considered two 'types' of location ; the first choice being derelict land or building site spaces, the second type being high-profile 'built' space in central London ( squares, streets, roundabouts etc.). The building sites and derelict land (including car - parks) the group looked at in central London seemed to hold too much potential for injuries and/or the risk of serious confrontation with the police, as many featured large deep holes and / or piles of rubble, or were in dead ends out of public view. The group also considered it undesirable for thousands of people (closely followed by thousands of cops) to descend uninvited into the heart of a local community without having made strong link beforehand. This was impossible in the tie available. This ruled out many sites outside central London. So the second type of location made more sense.
While checking out locations, a couple of people went by Parliament Square. The image inspired them. The idea was taken to the location group to see what they thought. After a lot of discussion, they agreed that, while cheeky it was a good idea. It also answered one of the basic problems that we soon realised we were facing. We simply did not have the resources (people power) to move people from one location to another even though we would have wanted to. June 18th being an example of the number of well briefed and willing people needed to move a huge crowd - approximately 150 people were needed to split the crowd into four and have them regroup at the final location that day. So it was agreed that this would be the new meeting place and that the action would then take place in the meeting space.
After J18 taking the carnival to the city, the symbolic centre of global capitalism, but one focused on financial capital, it made sense to us to bring our next action to the State. Capitalism needs the state, it needs its police forces and armies, its taxes, its laws etc. However much power is now in the hands of the markets and transational corporations, they still need the foundation of the state to do their work.
There is a huge danger with the growing anti "globalisation " movement that the right wing and reformists on the left simply want to take power away from the corporations and just give it back to the state. They want to give the state power to limit the "free" market and to control finance capital and corporations. Obviously our vision of the future is quite the opposite, it involves dissolving all hierarchical power and creating a space in which people can control their own lives without domination and mediation through politicians and corporations. For us to turn our backs on Parliament and celebrate our future on its doorstep in the form of Guerrilla Gardening seemed a powerful way of reminding everyone that capitalism was not just in the City !
Many people in RTS felt returning to the City of London to be a bad idea for Mayday not only because it would also have been a potentially dangerous place to go too simply because it was a bank holiday and there would have been no people around. Parliament Square was a high profile space and the possibility of creating a garden and dancing around a may pole outside the Houses of Parliament was irresistible.
There was discussion around whether or not a green space should be transformed. People in the locations groups agreed that, although it was a green space, it was not used by the public, not only because it is enclosed by cars and that yes there was a need to transform lawns into something both beautiful and useful and challenge peoples views on them as being something to aspire to in your garden.
Lawns: How nice, how neat, the sterile freshly mown lawn - how dare anyone question their existence! A symbol of wealthy, white civilisation. Pampered chemical ridden rectangles of monoculture. They may be ubiquitous features of the artificial landscapes of modern cities but the only green thing about them is their colour. Wasted space, dull chemical-soaked monoculture, carpet for outdoors, undead absences of biodiversity. That people in cities can feel attached to municipal turf is a revealing illustration of how divorced urban society has become from nature, cut off from ecological understanding.
This section first provides an account of what actually happened in and around Parliament Square on Mayday, and then goes on to discuss what we feel went 'right' and 'wrong' with the Guerrilla Gardening action, and why.
In writing this account we have combined our own recollections with the experiences of friends in addition to using material that has been put on the web by alternative media groups (such as the chronology of events on the Indymedia website, and reports in Urban 75 and Squall). Importantly, the locations group spent most of Mayday apart, in different places and different times, experiencing the same events from different perspectives, and experiencing some events by ourselves. For these reasons we feel the following account is fairly accurate. Even so, it is just one reconstruction of what actually happened, and therefore unavoidably subjective. There are bound to be gaps in places.
WE HAVE TRIED TO KEEP OUR ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED PURELY DESCRIPTIVE, SAVING COMMENTS, EXPLANATION, DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS, FOR LATER SECTIONS.Under blue skies, unadulterated spring sunshine, and against a backdrop of the interweaving rhythms of the Samba band and their accompaniment of exotic dancers; an assorted group of around five hundred to seven hundred (our guesstimates vary) cyclists and pedestrians laden with all the stuff you need for gardening, as well as huge flowerpot men, gathered at Hyde Park for the Mayday Critical Mass. Not long after 11am the Critical Mass moved off in a leafy carnivalesque procession down Grosvenor Place to wind its merry way towards Parliament Square via Victoria Street. The McDonalds in Victoria St. was left untouched, despite being only belatedly protected by white-shirted cops. Meanwhile, a crowd grew in Parliament Square. At this stage the police didn't interfere with either the progress of the Critical Mass or the gathering of people in Parliament Square. Not long before the Critical Mass reached Parliament Square the road outside the Treasury was spontaneously occupied and liberated from the car, and some people began Guerrilla Gardening in the square. Away from all this, two people were arrested under suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage - they were driving a van filled with compost and straw bales.
Not long after midday the Critical Mass arrived at Parliament Square, first meeting a colourful gangle of mythical-animal costumed people in Broad Sanctuary, and then a cheering crowd as it moved into the centre of the square. Soon, banners appeared, strung between lampposts, reading 'Let London Sprout', 'Under the Concrete the Earth', 'Resistance is Fertile', 'The Worms Turn', 'Capitalism is Pants', 'The Earth is a Common Treasury for All' (appropriately hung outside the Treasury), 'Reclaim The Streets', and 'Horticultural Anarchy'! Green sticky tape reading 'Reclaim The Streets !' ran between lampposts and statues. The transformation continued. Turf from the 'green' at the centre of the square was translocated onto the adjacent tarmac. A maypole, festooned with multicoloured ribbons, sprang up outside Parliament. Everywhere people planted - vegetables, trees, herbs, and seeds - their only tools plastic trowels and bare hands. Tips on gardening, permaculture and visions of the future were exchanged. Organic compost toilets were built in an unplanted flowerbed. Many of those not gardening were dancing around the maypole or to the samba, or simply sitting and chilling out with friends.
An Indymedia Public Access Terminal was set-up - feeding peoples words straight onto the net. In the middle of the growing community garden a shallow pond was dug, filled with water courtesy of the Metropolitan Police. The cops had kindly flooded the green the night before, making it easier for the turf to be pulled up, as well as providing a handy supply of water for the pond. Paving stones were pulled up and vegetables and flowers planted in their place. Around the edges of the garden beautiful sculptures were created from the sandy soil that lay beneath the turf. Speakers were set up on mini tripods where people played instruments, recited poetry, sang and ranted in various corners of the Square throughout the day. One of the most surreal and unforgettable sights has to be the street theatre that took place at the foot of Big Ben: on some newly turfed tarmac a mad hatters tea party was going on. Guests sat on chairs and dined on cucumber sandwiches and tea(quila) followed by after tea cigars and an incessant, hilarious political narrative provided by the diners - who sat around a table transformed from a previous life as a pram.
The mood throughout the Square was positive and peaceful and continued to be so for the rest of the day. Over a thousand hands getting dirty, planting ideas as well as gardens where before there had been none.
About an hour into the gardening, the Samba band started to move out of Parliament Square and up Whitehall. As it passed The Treasury an orange smoke bomb was set off. Some people followed the Samba band; while others followed a red flag. This procession (numbering between two to three thousand) carried on up Whitehall, some people stopping outside the entrance to Downing Street - guarded by riot cops, before moving up to Trafalgar Square. As soon as the Samba band started to move up Whitehall some people (including some of the locations group) tried to persuade the band, and later the people who were following the band, not to continue leaving Parliament Square, for fear we would all be split up and for fear that people would end up blocked into Trafalgar Square away from the action.
As people gathered further up in Trafalgar Square, the McDonalds on Whitehall, unprotected by police, other than a few at the ready with cameras, was redesigned over a ten minute period. Staff escaped through a rear exit and for some bizarre reason people then ate the contents of the shelves - no accounting for taste! An exchange bureaux next door received similar redesigning.
Riot police, some mounted and some on foot, quickly appeared and proceeded to split the crowd that occupied Whitehall and Trafalgar Square in two. This left thousands of people, many now confused and still prepared for Guerrilla Gardening, stranded in Trafalgar Square which was cordoned off by cops. The Samba band turned and went back from whence they had come. Those who did manage to make it back to Parliament Square, found many of the gardeners happily oblivious to the events that had been taking place just up the road. A line of riot police steadily pushed people back down Whitehall, back towards Parliament Square.
The only signs in Parliament Square of disturbances were a change from flouro jacketed police to those in riot gear. Gradually Parliament Square was cordoned at all street entrances. People were being let in and not out. Someone went to talk to the police about possible ways out of the square - at this early stage people only got to talk to low ranking officers who messed them around for about half an hour and initially said that the square was blocked off everywhere apart from Whitehall and that if anybody wanted to get out that was the only way that they could go (not appealing given the riot cops pushing everyone down Whitehall). At this point people began to gradually pack up their gardening activities and take down banners.
The people speaking to the police were then told that all exits were now closed off and if anybody wanted to leave they must approach officers individually. If they were not believed to have committed criminal damage then they would be allowed to leave - everyone else would be arrested. It was after this conversation that we first attempted a public assembly to inform people as to what the police were saying before asking people what they wanted to do.
Eventually (around 4pm) about four hundred people gathered around a collection of speakers and microphones on a wall and attempts at a public assembly began. The volume of the speakers and microphones were only loud enough to reach people at the very front, a few of whom were quite drunk and disruptive which did not help. However, given the limitations of the PA and the tension of being surrounded - the assembly succeeded to the degree that it facilitated a decision to move into Millbank and through police lines together and to progress to Kennington Park on the other side of the river. One person then communicated this decision back to the cop 'in charge' of the Square. He said that if everyone went to the Millbank exit from Parliament Square we would be allowed through and accompanied onto Kennington Park. He warned however that it would take a little while before the orders were to be sent down the line and requested that we be patient.
While the police dallied around trying to get ready, the unified and eager to leave crowd followed the Samba band to a stand off with the police at Millbank. The police there physically stopped people leaving the square. A small group of determined guerrilla gardeners managed to push through police lines with the aid of 'safety banners'. The liberated procession continued over Lambeth Bridge, bringing the traffic to a stand still. A stranded bus full of Japanese tourists got some wonderful pictures as the crowd wound their way south of the river and onto Kennington park with the seemingly tireless Samba band.
After coming across Lambeth Bridge the crowd split with most people continuing upriver with some people splitting up and heading off at several points. The larger group continued - with samba band - to the delight of some of the inhabitants of a housing estate en route to the park. However what also happened on the estate was that a pub was attacked, cars were damaged, and by-standers were intimidated by a small number of people; on seeing this many other people quickly restrained them. Once at the park, some rested in the softening sunlight; others lined up near one entrance to the park and lobbed anything they could find at riot cops and at each other. Eventually someone had the bright idea of starting a football match as a distraction from the conflict and a hundred aside game ensued. Eventually, the crowd dispersed... * It is unclear as to whether or not the police lied to people about leaving or whether orders had not gone down the line by the time people tried to leave via Millbank. PS Extract from a report of the anti hunt demo at parliament that took place at the beginning of June.........The 'repairs' to Parliament Square look very minimal, the turf is still missing in all the torn up areas, just the holes have been filled. From the pavement you can see various plants growing above the grass, but a walk onto the grass reveals patches of lettuces, potatoes, onions and plenty of other plants that I didn't recognise popping up all over the place. The one other plant (or should I say weed) that I did recognise, and that was everywhere was hemp / ganja, its sprouting all over the place, in some areas the weed is 4-5 inches tall!
Inevitably what we consider to have gone 'right' and 'wrong' is a matter of our personal opinion. We've endeavoured to be self-critical and aware of both criticisms and praise we've received since Mayday..
Although much of what went 'wrong' was away from Parliament Square, some of it was the result of how the Guerrilla Gardening had been planned. How much it was the responsibility of RTS and the individuals involved is open to debate, but we reckon the following points are most important:
* EXPECTATIONS : There were many expectations of what Mayday might be. Was it going to be four days of chaos and mayhem as described by the Mayday conference flyer, was it just going to be Guerrilla Gardening as promised by the RTS fliers or was it going to be a re run of the city riots as promised by most of the press ; a combination of circumstances had contrived to create false expectations, in some of the crowd that gathered in Parliament Square. These expectations were probably not easily reconcilable with gardening or staying in the meeting place ; the media had promised and advertised a riot so it's fair to assume that this led to some people coming for that and not gardening, and others to stay away altogether. * FLAGS + FLIERS: Pre-public fliers produced by RTS said that we would be transforming a grey and concrete space. This was untrue, though it was written before the location had been decided. Agitprop produced by groups other than RTS had portrayed Parliament Square as a meeting place for an undefined protest against capitalism ,when in fact Parliament Square was always the meeting place for guerrilla gardening action only.10,000 fliers were printed specifically to brief people on the plan for the day. How many of these were given out is unsure, it seems some of them never made it to the square ! These 'essential' fliers explained that Guerrilla Gardening was a "peaceful celebration", that it was about participation and it also described the use of different colour flags: Red for crowd movement, green for starting to garden and black for the public assembly at the end of the day.
The red Flags were needed to facilitate crowd movement in case Plan A "Parliament Square "was not possible due to police not allowing us to assemble there (see Graeme Cheste'rs piece in the appendix for the legal significance of assemblies in Parliament square ) . Unfortunately a bad choice had been made concerning the colour of those flags (a last minute decision made by tired people, although we knew the importance of unique visual cues) some people genuinely believed non-RTS flags were RTS flags, and ended up following them out of Parliament Square. Red on Mayday was stupid.
Not all the green flags made it to the centre of the square, and those that did were not tall enough to be visible to most of the crowd. In the end RTS red flags were not used as they were not needed to move to plan B. But the trouble was we could not say that they might not be used on the flier as this would have made it obvious to the police that plan A was to stay in Parliament Square and not move off to another location.
* LOCATION - Plans were only made for Parliament Square. There was an assumption made that it would be obvious to all that as soon as banners and Reclaim the Streets tape, green flags and the maypole went up that Parliament Square was the location for the action. Therefore plans were not made to dissuade people from going up Whitehall and into Trafalgar Square.One of the joys of RTS actions is the huge adrenaline buzz of winning and liberating a space, which normally involves a chase with the police and moving through city streets, because Parliament Square came easy, an unfulfilled fix probably left many restless for movement. As mentioned above, we simply did not have the resources to facilitate large and complex crowd movements, so meeting at the location was the only option.
* COMMUNICATION WITH THE SAMBA BAND ; The Samba band became restless and autonomously got playing and moved up Whitehall - some say to meet up with the Trade Unionist rally, some say to bring people back to Parliament Square. They were not following a red flag. Thousands followed the Samba band, many destined to get stuck in Trafalgar Square missing out on the gardening and getting hassle from the cops. A number of people determinedly asked the band to go back to Parliament Square, but no avail. Such is the nature of autonomy, and the unpredictability and spontaneity of mass actions. It is important to remember that the Samba Band always has to deal with lots of different people trying to drag it off in different directions which makes things very difficult for them. The bottom line was that there should have been more pre-arranged lines of communication between the locations group and the band. It had been wrongly assumed that the Samba Band would realise that the plan was for them to stay in the square and the one person who was communicating with them thought that it would be okay to leave that communications role on arriving and setting up in the square. The samba band did not know who else knew what the plan was so despite a few people from the locations group asking them to turn back this did not work. * NOT ENOUGH TO DO ; even though there was greater participation than usual, more activities should have been organised for people to get involved with. There was disagreement within the group about whether or not the guerrilla gardening as planned was as participatory as we wanted. The majority of the group, given the resources and time available, believed that we could not have improved upon the plan.When the media talk of "Reclaim the Streets" it is perhaps unclear who or what they are referring to. Many people might picture a huge, smoothly running group, with offices and highly trained volunteers, displaying "unprecedented levels of organisation" to quote a police report. Others might imagine a virtual world of shadowy activists communicating in "cells" over the internet and using mobile phones, "protest by stealth" was one phrase a tabloid used recently. The reality is neither of these. RTS is a very loose, extremely fluid and diverse group of people who meet at weekly open meetings and coalesce into informal affinity groups to work on specific tasks and actions. These groups are often based on friendship and might include people with jobs and kids, full time activists, scientists, academics, artists, builders, musicians the combination is always enriching. These working groups might form for a few months then melt away, some people have been involved for years others have just got onboard.
There is no centre, no formal structure, everything is based on trust and a shared belief in radical creative politics The office is too often empty, calls go unanswered for weeks, meetings of 50 odd people can be a painful process, We are far from perfect, and yet many people lump the entire "anti-capitalist movement on our shoulders".
Everyone in RTS is critical of the Mainstream corporate media, and yet there is much debate about how and whether we should cooperate or interact with media at all.
Our direct actions are not intended to create stunts that get media coverage which pressure politicians to change things for us. For RTS Direct action is people taking control of their own lives, without the mediation of politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen, all of whom will never radically transform capitalism because they are the few that benefit from it. To act directly is to address the actual issue of your concern. So, for example, if you are working against homelessness you might take over an abandoned building and make it liveable. It's not about asking others to do things for us, it is doing things for ourselves and in this way is also a model for how people will run the future society. It may involve theatre, beautiful images and inspirational action, but this is not to intended as a spectacle for the media but as an inspiration to those involved, as a way to inject pleasure and beauty into radical politics.
When we take direct action its a direct immediate experience for participants who are present, not people watching it on TV. This is why we do not court the media and why it comes way down the lists of priorities for us.
However, the reality is that the media does affect the way people think and is a gateway, however warped, between us and a wider public. When we totally ignore it then there is a tendency that they just quote the police press releases. It must also be remembered that many activists first got involved after seeing stuff about the movement in mainstream media. The state want us to stay underground, they want us to behave like terrorists, face less and ghettoised. The other issue is that the state has always used the media to discredit any radical opposition. This is truer today in our image saturated, PR conscious society than it ever was.
Post J18 when the police declared their "war of attrition" against RTS, it is clear that instead of arresting perceived "ringleaders", raiding offices etc. and weakening RTS that way they have decided to go for a propaganda war using the mass media. A war which paints us as violent extremists and hypes actions up to be "violent" and therefore puts off many new people getting involved. There have been endless articles over the past year that attempt to distort and discredit RTS, particularly nasty was the one just before N30 in the Sunday Times which claimed RTS was "stock piling arms" including "stun guns and CS gas". The other one, which was guaranteed to put a lot of people off coming on Mayday was the "Evening Standard" article the night before saying "ARMY on Standby for Riot". Both cases were totally unrelated to reality, surprise surprise !!
We need to prioritise organising actions and our own media ( web sites, publications etc. ). However, some people in RTS do believe that we should try, at the same time, to work with the corporate media in situations which we feel we can control to some extent.
A decision was made by some RTS people involved in the action that we should try to counteract the 'violent mindless thugs' propaganda leading up to Mayday and they took this on. Press releases were sent out in the lead up to the action and interviews were given, including an in depth one with The Guardian. Some RTS people even stood outside new Scotland Yard handing out press releases, fliers and packet of organic seeds to all the corporate media crime correspondants going into the Police press briefing that they held about the Mayday weekend. This action seemed to totally confuse the stereotype that both press and police have of us ! The media coverage in the weeks before was often positive, it felt that this work had helped to "reclaim" a little of what we were really about and bring out the some of issues in a positive way.
A press conference was also held on the morning of the Mayday conference, together with the Mayday 2000 conference organisers. It was a complete farce, all the press were interested in was the violence [non] issue - they were not interested in the conference or the action nor the issues or the ideas behind them.
On the day of the action RTS had very little contact with the corporate media. This was partly due to no one wanting to take it on and some people being too busy on the day iself.
The day after Mayday, when the media hysteria started in ernest, a few people in the "locations" group felt it was important to write a statement about the day as quickly as possible - to higlight the Guerrilla Gardening and to put Mc Donalds and Churchill and the Cenotaph into context. The idea was to refuse any live interviews as we knew that they would just be about the violence. A statement read out to gathered media, would allow two very nervous people to present some of our message in the most clear and articulate manner possible. However the statement was written in less than two hours by five people (who were totally knackered) who were simultaneously trying to organise a press conference, book a space and contact all the media. It was a mad, mad rush and the statement suffered.
The extent of the media hysteria took everyone by surprise - but the thing to remeber is we should never accept the establishment media's interpretation of an event as reality. It's so easy for us to do this, many people who experienced the positive creative experience of Guerilla Gardening felt their memories of the day were eclypsed by wht they read the following days in the papers.
SUFFRAGETTES - The hysteria is nothing new, in fact it is only sign of our sucess , if we were not a threat to the system would they go out of their way to demonise us so virulently. Witness the 1913 "Battle of Downing Street" when The Times described the women's suffrage activists as "demented creatures" whose "conduct completely alienated the sympathy of the crowd". Sound familiar ! And remember, they won ! Although it did involve burning MP houses down, destroying works of art and trying to blow up the bank of England ! Something the establishement wishes to forget when it speaks about the "honorable" British tradition of dissent !
For Independent Media coverage see: http://www.indymedia.org.uk
More pointers for further discussion and exploration:
Yet again time has been the enemy and this has meant that we have not had the chance to go into all the points that have come up in the past few weeks. We have listed many of them below. Lots of these questions and issues are raised and often addressed in some of the diverse articles that we have copied at the end of the pamphlet, they are not necessarily our viewpoints but hopefully all are food for more thought.
Please note that the 'Reflections' publication will only have room to include considered articles that attempt to get to grips with the problem of where the 'new anti-capitalist movement' goes from here. The articles should ideally also be critical, comradely and not too long. Other sorts of writings, such as simple commentaries on what happened on May 1st., would probably be better sent to the Mayday discussion lists. The deadline is 1 August 2000.
Hopefully some of the pieces will continue on the discussions in 'Reflections on June 18' available at: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~acf/online/j18/index.html
Other links worth checking out:
http://www.urban75.com/ http://www.indymedia.org.uk/ http://www.squall.co.uk
So.... What now?
Sure, we need to learn from our failures as much as we need to learn from our successes.. Every mass-action or campaign will experience both success and failure, and the events in London on Mayday are no exception. Constructive criticism should be welcomed. But take care. People are really panicking about Mayday leading them to do and say really stupid things - especially via the media. We should all be taking very deep breaths and preparing to knuckle down and do some serious talking about ways forward - together. Otherwise we may as well all give up.
We must not allow the Government and media to divide and rule by splitting and polarising us right now when we are at our strongest - that is playing directly into their game plan. What we surely must be doing - is exploring ways where we can work together despite our differences and continuing to use our diversity as a strength. If we cannot then we surely can kiss 'revolution' goodbye by destroying each other, our movement and all of our amazing visions through internal fighting. Ironic when the world that most of us are envisioning would be one celebrating and embracing diversities of opinions.
We need to react to the anti-terrorist legislation in the same way we reacted to the Criminal Justice Act - we must grow even more determined, and strengthen the links between all the diverse groups that make up our movement, at the same time as looking to make new allies.
We hope that this debrief hepls in some way to moving forward.
And revolution is in the heart too. Yes it is. It's a moment of consciousness, like a switch going on, a moment of recognition. It can happen to anyone at any time. It can even happen to a Policeman. One definition of revolution is when the Police and the Army changes sides. Yes, that can happen too, it has happened, many times. So if revolution is a matter of consciousness, then surely we should be engaging consciousness, fighting our revolutionary battles for the hearts and minds of the people. Do we do this with violence? Do we do this even by desecrating a monument held dear in the consciousness of the people, not as a glorification of war, but as a sad reminder of the victims of war, as an act of collective memory? How many people were at the Mayday event? Maybe 4,000. A few more, a few less? I remember an anti-apartheid march back in the 80s when there was a quarter of a million. I remember sitting in a pub with my mates (having got bored with marching) for two hours, getting pissed, and coming out to find the march was still marching on. And before we ask, did this get rid of apartheid? the answer is, yes it did. This march and many more like it, the direct targeting of companies like Barclays with interests in apartheid, the many small and large actions every day of every week around the world. That's how you win, by influencing minds, not by alienating them. And who was the revolutionary leader of the anti-apartheid movement in Britain? Archbishop Trevor Huddlestone, that's who, a Christian. Battles are won by alliances, not by isolation. Mayday was a tragic failure, at least in Britain, not because we don't know that many decent-hearted people were there, but because we lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the British public when we - accidentally or on purpose - allowed ourselves to look like thugs. That's the consequence of violence, and the reason we should be committed to non-violence as the only tactic.
Best, Chris Stone.
I agree with you that the only way to win battles is by building alliances and not by alienating people. I also agree with you that we should be (are?) committed to non-violence as the best tactic.
However, when you use the example of the International campaign against apartheid, you neglect to mention that the ANC were also engaged in an armed struggle for thirty or more years. In addition, I seem to remember Barclays being targeted with graffiti, super glue and even the odd brick through the window.
Whilst I agree that violence is counter-productive, I think you should be wary of re-writing history to suit your argument. Hopefully, Apartheid was crushed by the peaceable actions of millions of people world wide, but whether you like it or not, armed struggle, bombings, political murders and property damage were also a part of the anti-Apartheid struggles. I would like to see a lot more de-construction of what we mean when we talk about "violence". The way that May Day commentators have been going on about "violence" anyone would think that there was an armed mob who stormed Parliament and burnt it to the ground before advancing on Buckingham Palace to do the same, mowing down thousands of cops with machine guns along the way. The way the media reported the events, you would think that everyone in and around Whitehall was armed with bricks and bottles.
Furthermore, I do not see how we can go about winning hearts and minds via the mainstream media. Whatever we do, there will always be a large section of the Press who will berate and ridicule us no matter what we do. If they can't find any real violence to report (which is all the world's press were looking for), then they will invent it as the Sunday Times did when it reported that RTS were stock-piling CS gas and stun guns prior to N30. After 72 hours of blanket media reporting about the "violence" that was going to occur on May Day, is it so surprising that the media managed to find some? I actually think that the vast majority of "demonstrators" (and for that matter MOST of the police) were - under the circumstances - incredibly well behaved and restrained. Should we not be celebrating this as a success, rather than pandering to this "violence" agenda which has been manufactured by the police and the press in order to (further) marginalise and divide us?
If we all agree that violence is counter-productive, what do we do to prevent it? Do we hand violent trouble-makers over to the police? Do we vet who comes to these events and make them cliquey and invitation only? Or do we singularly and collectively try to tackle "idiots" ourselves. I think the latter is the most preferable, although given the macho elements on both sides who seem bent on confrontation, why not just let them get on with it?
It is simply not fair to tar 4,000 people with the same brush. Just because there are a few idiots around it should not reflect on all of us. Again, this is what the media has done in the way that they have reported on these events (focusing exclusively on a violent minority). Why are we playing into their hands?
The media has this stereotype of a "protestor" who is someone on the dole with dreadlocks, who drinks strong lager and chucks bricks at the police. Black people and women won't stand for this sort of stereotyping, so why should we?
I don't agree that the problem with these "events" is the way that they are organised or who turns up. The problem with these events is the mass media and the police. I for one don't take to the streets in order to get my picture in the paper, and I wish that the media would just piss off and leave us alone. I would rather not be talked about than berated and vilified because of the actions of a minority.
I agree that violence is bad, but I don't see how condemning people for graffiti or vandalism - which are in any case endemic in society and not treated as particularly grave offences (not that I think graffiti and vandalism are good by the way) - or for defending themselves against street arrest and advancing riot police - is going to help any of us. We should be standing TOGETHER, even with the "idiots".
In some futuristic utopia without cops and judges there will still be "idiots", but we will have to collectively deal with them amongst ourselves. We won't do this by punishing and alienating them.
In times gone by, rioting and vandalism were an inevitable part of spring festivals and celebrations. Our feudal masters largely turned a blind eye to this as it was seen as a good chance to let the peasants let off steam. In those days, wars were fought in fields, rather like games of football, and citizens were not at all involved.
We now live in a society where the technologies of death are one of the prime earners under capitalism, where our taxes are used to bomb civilian populations abroad and where violence is endemic at all levels. Hundreds of men, women and children are beaten in their own homes everyday. The perpetrators of these crimes are the real "violent thugs" and bear no comparison to someone who - whether out of stupidity, drunkenness, political conviction or the heat of the moment - writes on a War monument or smashes a McDonalds window.
The following article might be of interest to those discussing tactics for activists, including those thinking about the Mayday events in London and elsewhere. "So why non-violence?" is a guest editorial published in the latest edition of the monthly Non-violent Action, and maybe some of you who might be interested in it haven't already seen it.
Guerrilla Gardening and ploughshares actions signal the start of the summer activist season for this year. It seems a good opportunity to revisit some of our reasons for insisting on non-violence in our approach to making change.
In "heart" politics it is important not to lose our heads. We might be trying to stop something from happening and it may be urgent, but we are also playing a longer game in which the same or a similar situation may recur. It's the underlying causes we are addressing as well as the current situation. If we are to be truly effective we need to think beyond the immediate. We need to view the tactic of a particular action in the context of the bigger picture. A disciplined non-violent approach enables us to see all our actions as part of the process for change. The heart drives, the head guides.
Few people understand non-violence. Hardly surprising since we live in a culture of violence which seems only to understand the concept of domination through conquest. Active non-violence is not about ignoring or running away from a problem, or being naive and woolly-headed. It is ultimately about saying "I shall stop you doing this until we can accept an alternative". Police and other security forces can interpret our assertive position as a challenge to their authority (which of course it is, whilst also being an appeal to their humanity) and lash out in a violent response. This could be more to do with their training and social programming than with us. If we remain non-violent and in control we offer them no reference point for violence, no hook to hang their own response on, and it can throw them off balance. Martial arts often turn the force and energy of the assailant to the advantage of the assailed. Active non-violence is a form of political ju-jitsu.
The injustice and oppression we are challenging are systemic forms of violence. If we ourselves are violent we simply add to the violence. We become what we oppose, and everyone loses. When we oppose violence with non-violence we break the chain, the whole dynamic changes and the way is open for solutions in which all can have a stake.
In violent conflict, the most violent tend to win. Any subsequent power struggle becomes a competition in who can be the most violent. A culture of violence grows from this; attitudes harden, people are dehumanised and life becomes cheap. In this culture it is easy to see our opponents as enemies, something less than human, something to do away with. We see the uniform or the suit, the outward symbols of the thing we despise, and not the person inside and we justify our callousness accordingly. Non-violence turns this on its head and speaks to the humanity in people. It acknowledges that in the end we all have to live with each other. And it challenges us to create better systems and processes to replace the ones we intend to bring down. So, if we want a just and fair world we need to build it today, starting with ourselves, our relationships with each other - and even our opponents. The means are the ends in the making.
How many news stories have we seen which report a violent incident and mention almost as an afterthought the reason for the wider action? Whilst sometimes it might seem to us to be a choice of no media coverage or bad coverage, if the sole purpose of our action is to get on TV, then maybe we ought to rethink our strategy. If violence is the only thing that makes the news, aren't we playing to the media agenda by being violent? We can be creative and effective in our actions without being violent - and still get our message out free of charge.
Non-violent actions over the years have been remarkable for their sheer creativity. Not surprising. When we reject violence we allow space for our imaginations - and we are amazing! We can communicate powerful ideas in highly effective and memorable ways: the die-ins and sit-down blockades of the anti-nuclear '60s; embrace-the-base and teddy-bears picnics at Greenham; the intense tree and tunnel anti-roads actions; the determined ploughshares actions; the purposeful eco-village projects; the joyful RTS street parties; they all conjure up clear and lasting images about what is wrong and how it could be put right.
Sometimes it's difficult for us to accept that change won't happen immediately: the deeper the change we want, the more time it'll take. But our actions are an essential part of the change process. They put those who support the status quo in a position of having to defend it, and they raise in the minds of others the powerful question "Does it have to be like this?". Remember, historically the marginalised and ridiculed new thinkers in any society have tended to be in the vanguard of change. We are the prophets.
If wider support is important to us, as it should be if we want effective social change, we should bear in mind that violence on our part may well alienate potential allies, and could discourage a broader-based engagement with the issues we are trying to raise.
What's the point of confronting a violent system with violence? Capitalism is a systemic form of violence, and our laws, whilst in theory based on justice and fair play, in practice tend to support the rights of capital and property over people. We are more likely to get charged with breaking one multinational corporations' office window than that corporation is for exploitative, dangerous and punitive practices which break lives. And if we retaliate after a police officer hits us...? Injustice and oppression can only be sustained through violence - why do you suppose the most dominant states have nuclear weapons? This is a system developed over centuries and run by experts. Do we really think we can shift it by playing the same game?
If you're into that, fine - go get your weapon and try your luck. You may get an emotional high in striking a blow, but has it been effective? Or has it meant that the forces you oppose become even further entrenched? Even if you "win", you still have to deal with the people you've injured and who want to avenge; and the backlash of those in power; and counter-revolutionaries who'll be out to get you and re-establish themselves. When you fight fire with fire you just end up with a bigger fire. Much better to use water.
Who will convert global capitalism into a network of equitable micro-economies? Who will be the ones to deal with the damage of GM crops? Who will dismantle the nuclear installations? Once our view prevails and change is afoot, the people we now see as our opponents will be among those who have the expertise to bring the change about. Instead of seeing them as enemies to be defeated, they are in fact our partners in change. They just don't know it yet.
In certain non-violent actions we might expect a violent response from the authorities or their agents, especially when the focus of our action is close to the heart of the system, or touches a nerve. This is difficult for us, but it can be a way of exposing the inherent violence of the system so that it can be dealt with. If we stay in control and remain non-violent, it enables the shift towards change as that organisation comes to terms with its own violence and oppression which has been witnessed by all. Just such a situation was the pivotal moment in the US civil rights movement. A violent response from us would only allow the official violence to be justified, thereby locking us all into the situation and enabling the denial and evasion to continue. And that is why agents provocateurs are sometimes placed within our numbers.
Because non-violence discourages violent backlashes and seeks as an end result reconciliation
Many violent engagements tend to focus on the immediate - a "let's get rid of" approach. Not a huge deal of consideration is given to what happens next, and our violent actions invariably sow the seeds of future violence. If our aim is for a just and equitable society we should be looking to peacefully share that society with those who at present resist it. Non-violence is geared towards breaking the cycle of violence and counter-violence. It's different because it includes in its endgame reconciliation and peaceful co-existence with those we are currently fighting. Non-violence is a realistic, practical way of achieving effective and lasting change and, as it becomes more widely understood, its potential is enormous.
NvA, 5 Caledonian Rd, London N1 9DY (tel 020-7713 6540; fax 7278 0444; e-mail nva@gn.apc.org).
Reclaim the Satyagraha! is a group working to stress the importance of the "NV" in NVDA (non-violent direct action), and to develop discussions of non-violence amongst activists; it holds weekly open meetings in London:
Reclaim the Satyagraha!, c/o Non-violent Action, 5 Caledonian Rd, London N1 9DY (tel 07973-539390; e-mail enquiries@satyagraha.org; web www.satyagraha.org).
Mayday is traditionally a day to remember the struggle of millions of people worldwide for their rights, livelihoods and freedom. It has also been a celebration of the rebirth of spring and the renewal of hope for thousands of years.
Yesterday in London we helped remember that history by celebrating the potential to turn sterile areas of our city into healthy diverse and useful ecosystems. People gardened, built ponds, played in the sandpit and danced around the maypole set up in the street freed of cars.
We were not protesting. Under the shadow of an irrelevant parliament we were planting the seeds of a society where ordinary people are in control of their land, their resources, their food and their decision making. The garden symbolised an urge to be self-reliant rather than dependent on capitalism. It celebrated the possibility of a world that encourages co-operation and sharing rather than one which rewards greed, individualism and competition.
We are pleased that the aims of redesigning Parliament Square and involving thousands of people in pleasurable constructive work and collective decision making were achieved.
Events that occurred outside Parliament Square were not part of the Guerrilla Gardening event.
All Reclaim The Streets' publicity emphasised a creative, positive action -10,000 leaflets were handed out on the day stating that "Guerrilla Gardening is not a protest; by its very nature it is a creative peaceful celebration of the growing global anticapitalist movement."
The corporate media's obsession with confrontation and property damage conceals the violence of capital that occurs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year: The fact remains that the most likely cause of death for an under 14 year old in Britain is being hit by a car, that 1 in 3 children in the UK is brought up in poverty and 50% of this country's ancient woodland has been destroyed since 1950, all in the name of profit. Surely that is the violence that should be splashing the front pages.
In relation to the graffiti on the cenotaph, we are obviously very aware of the millions of people who have given their lives in the fight for freedom. We know that millions are still dying every year in numerous struggles for independence, freedom and human rights. We respect and celebrate all those people who are, and have been, prepared to stand up to fascism, imperialism and dictatorship. That said, we do not necessarily celebrate the generals and the ruling class that send these people to their deaths in order to protect the privileges and control of the few. The abhorrence of sending millions of men to their deaths in the trenches dwarfs the stupidity of any possible slogan on any possible piece of stone.
Mayday has a great history of people struggling for progress and a decent society. We honour all those people and will continue that tradition.
The banner tied across the treasury building in Parliament Square read THE EARTH IS A COMMON TREASURY FOR ALL
[The statement was written by those in the locations group and read out by two people to assorted media. Not as the voice of RTS but as a few of the people involved in organising the Guerrilla Gardening action. It was decided beforehand that we would simply read the statement out and answer no questions - as predicted the only questions they wanted to ask were where RTS stood on the violence. At the time it was written we had not properly debriefed and therefore did not know about all the details that led people up Whitehall.]
RTS : Get-up, Stand up & or Shut-up! Mark I Brown (from the Land is Ours -12/05/00)
Though I'm certainly no Trotskyist, I recognise that there is one key aspect of their philosophy that is useful - namely that of permanent revolution from within. I say this now in relation to RTS because in my mind, I feel Reclaim The Streets has now ended up down a philosophical cul-de-sac.
The pressure on RTS to organise the action in London on May-Day was borne from an unrealistic expectation of RTS's organisational capabilities. In short, the 'change' which I refer to, which I believe has to come now, is for RTS to re-model itself so as to redress this imbalance between people's expectations and what RTS actually does. RTS has to simply change to reflect the extent of it's capabilities. The Guerilla Gardening action was a great idea. But a big idea like that in an area like Parliament Square needed more people to organise it. The extent and sophistication of pre-event publicity shows up to me that there is an imbalance between talking an action up and actually getting on and organising logistics on the day. Lots of hype and no meat & potatoes in my opinion.
This question of what money is spent on and the people spending it being accountable to others was raised a week before the weekend gathering at Exodus back in October, but was then taken off the agenda.
On another point, the question of violence is straightforward in my mind. Since RTS chose to not rule out association with events that happened in Whitehall (wrongly in my opinion) while the Guerrilla Gardening took place in Parliament Square, RTS should have denounced the petty stupid graffiti on the war memorials, and made a clear distinction between morons with spray cans and genuine symbolic gestures (i.e. why glorify war?). What the fuck has the slogan "Wheres my girlfriend?" got to do with our cause, which some jerk wrote on one of the monuments. RTS should have added in their statement that we denounced the extent of petty sporadic graffiti onto the start of the sentence which read, "In relation to the graffiti on the cenotaph, we are obviously very aware of the millions of people who have given their lives in the fight for freedom. We know that millions are still dying every year in numerous struggles for independence, freedom and human rights. We respect and celebrate all those people&.".
This fear of oppressing other people's interpretation of anarchy is political correctness gone mad, rather like Militant and other Trotskyist infiltrators and left-wing nutters who plagued Labour Councils in the 1980s. In my mind, because RTS has single-handedly failed to make the distinction between petty and legitimate violence and, by stubbornly refusing to denounce tenuous interpretations of what constitutes action, through guilt-by-association, responsibility for ALL of the violence on the day (legitimate and stupid) has landed on our doorstep. As a result, RTS has now firmly isolated itself from mainstream society in a quite spectacular way, appearing as some underground unit, aloof from the concerns of the general public, a public who we should be attempting to engage with, not create distance between. PEOPLE IN RTS ARE FOOLED IF THEY THINK THAT BY ORGANISING A COUPLE OF MASS ACTIONS A YEAR THAT THIS IN ITSELF MAKES US WHITER-THAN-WHITE ENVIRONMENTALISTS, STANDING ON A PEDESTAL ABOVE THE REST OF THE POPULACE. In the news on t.v. (from which like it or not, most people are reliant upon to get their information), the way that statement sounded, it was reminiscent of an IRA press statement. This tone is mirrored in some of the purist language in the current discourse of ecological resistance, some of which is damn fine cutting critique of the current New World Order and capitalist/consumer treadmill, and some of which is conversely ideology that sits uncomfortably astride notions of an anti-humanist, master-race agenda, akin to something the green movement which was the fore-runner of Nazi-Germany would have wrote at the turn of the 20th century.
The question, therefore, that is left to answer is: what is RTS? Are you happy with the current set-up, and does it achieve the aims & objectives in the best way. Indeed, what are it's aims and objectives?
Some people may dig the 'underground culture' being taken to it's logical conclusion ie : enemies of the State. But by taking us down that road, we can forget any hope of networking, reaching out into the community.
I would say that if RTS continues down the road it is currently going now, then it might as well disband. All RTS is now is a moribund collection of individuals whose continuity relies upon a few over-stretched individuals at any one time, pledging allegiance to a genuine anger against capitalism which is sadly without any collective vision of an alternative agenda that represents the ecological world view, apart from some vague utopian vision. This lack of a clear agenda is open to disturbing manipulation by disparate groups who seek to impose their own agenda. The fact is that this vague utopia of the green kingdom is reminiscent of being the world-view from some ivory-tower mentality which bears no relation to ordinary people's lives. The Liverpool Dockers was a great campaign link, which was never built upon.
In terms of people involved in RTS, the group started dying 2 years ago, but June 18th provided a temporary blip in the general decline (I refer you to Jim Paton's statement/rant "Time to Disband RTS" dated December 1st last year). Conversly, RTS actions have grown in popularity, which has meant that there is this pressure of expectation on limited resources that we saw with MayDay. So, the most crucial question of all that needs answering is whether or not these expectations are realistic. I assert that they are not, and so, therefore, it is time that RTS changes course if it wants to continue, by becoming a tighter organisation, with an elected core group that chooses very carefully in future what actions it gets involved in, and only gets involved in actions proportionate to the organisational resources of the group. This would also go a little way to helping deal with security considerations that have been dogging RTS now for some time. And ideologically, the boundaries of what RTS should be active within would be definitively defined (for e.g. being the active conscience of the general public, via demonstrating alternatives through actions which comprise political/ideological theatre). London Underground would then be the logical place to take on the role of the general activist forum in London (or maybe a London Earth-First group). This would free RTS to become the tighter group is needs to be, with clear breathing space to digest all of the networks, ideas and wisdoms learnt over previous years, and to come to some kind of, dare I say it, political bullet-point of view.
RTS should either start articulating it's vision of the alternative now, or shut-up and go away. @@@@@@@@@@ We need to bite the hand that feeds us, and we need to sink our teeth into it now. Being eco warriors in the field(s) but passive consumers at dinner time is not good enough. If we are to effectively confront corporate agribusiness then we, the landless, need to develop our imagination and rediscover skills so that we can start to unplug ourselves from the machine, (and unplug the machine itself). From 'Farmageddon ! : Confronting Industrial Agriculture.' Do or Die No.7