Ten theses about violence in anti-capitalist demonstrations

Insurrection | Analysis

This text was first published by the WOMBLES as part of a booklet distributed before and during the mobilisations against the G8 in Scotland in 2005.

++++

1. When anti-capitalist demos are described, the dominant social representation and social use of the concept/term 'violence' refers to a physical, aggressive form of violence - when you physically hit somebody, when you break something.

2. The main function, deliberate or not, of the dilemma 'violence' - 'non-violence' is to create a new field of debate and critique, a new ideological battlefield where everyone (journalists, politicians, protesters, etc) talk about; a new object for our attention is born, which marginalizes the most important aspect of every demo - the social struggle (as a whole entity) against the capitalist, authoritarian system (as a whole entity).

3. Both the 'never-violent' - 'always-violent' positions seek a symbolic and material impact during the demo; yet, in the present conditions of the broader social struggle, the expectations of a material impact are usually low. Rather, under the spectacular mechanisms of the media, a symbolic impact is perceived as more possible. The latter possibility can drive the two positions to be used merely for spectacular goals.

4. The 'always-violent' position uses violence as the only means to symbolise the confrontation with the powers of the state and capital, to symbolise the power of the social struggle. Thus violence becomes a self-goal and it is not treated as another means of the broader social struggle.

5. The 'never-violent' position achieves a small symbolic impact by being 'morally legitimate', by being compliant with the social value of 'peacefulness'. A much greater symbolic impact is achieved though, if the police attack; then the non-violent crowd symbolises 'the powerless society', 'the victim' and reveals the violent nature of the state. Under such conditions, the moral power of 'being a victim' is used to gain sympathy of the 'public opinion'.

6. When the 'never-violent' - 'always-violent' positions, become a repeated reality, they drive to easily predicted demos. They create well-established social expectations for the form and the outcome of the demos and stereotypical patterns of crowd action of the demonstrators.

7. Our intentions, as anarchists/anti-authoritarians, should not be fixated on any dogmatic and simplistic pole - 'always-violent' or 'never-violent'. Rather, we should try to make coherent analysis of the broader social context so as to identify the potential role of an active confrontation as a demo. The most important thing is to project a clear social-political meaning to the demo, whether we confront or not; a meaning connected with the broader social struggle against state and capital.

8. Moreover, even if the crowd (or part of the crowd) decides to actively confront (or not), it is specific social situation and mostly, the interaction between crowd and the police which determines what is really going to happen. The situation of the demo is constructed act by act and any pre-decisions are forced to fit in a fluid reality.

9. Any violence of the social actors in a demo is basically 'anti-violence'; a symptom, not cause, of the broader state violence. When the state responds with further repression of the social struggle, after an expression of anti-violence, it just reveals, with less 'tact' and more cruelty, what already is. Violence is at the heart of the state; it gave birth to the state and now it preserves it.

10. Instead of focusing on the 'violence' - 'non-violence' dilemma, we should make an effort to understand why the general, alienated violence which already exists in the social realm does not target against the state and the capital; why it does not become a multi-dimensional, active confrontation of authority. Self-critique of our movement is essential part of this process.

from the WOMBLES G8 2005 leaflet

Bookmark/Search this post with: