imageAs far as you can be certain about any early childhood memory I’m pretty sure that one year Santa Claus left me a box with some felt tip pens and pop out human figures that you had to colour in. There were two sets of characters. Some were cops and others were demonstrators and you were able to write slogans on their placards. I think I opted for ones which reflected local attitudes to the British army.

The point here is that some toy company thought that there was money to be made in selling “make your own demo” kits to fairly young kids. At the time you certainly got to see lots of them on TV and, even if you didn’t quite understand what was happening you knew that the cops were the baddies. You also knew that lots of people were really cross about stuff and were willing to fight the police and risk getting battered.

Something like that is starting to happen again. As a few recent reports on this site have indicated not just is a new movement being born it is also developing its own ways of doing things.

Let’s take a couple of examples.

There’s the wavy hand thing to show you agree with people. Apparently it can be a great time saver. Instead of saying “I agree with most of what’s been said” and going on to explain at length why you do, all you have to do is waggle your hands and risk feeling like a prat. For those of obliged to endure union meetings at which the same handful of people feel morally obligated to offer an opinion on everything from the choice of refreshments to something that made them cross on the news this morning it would be a blessed relief.

Then there is the visual impact of an event. You know it’s a real thing if lots of home made placards are in evidence. By contrast tons of pre-printed, neatly stapled ones with a well loved slogan seem to suggest either an attempt at astro-turfing or a cack-handed way of trying to suggest it was your idea all along.

Here is an expletive riddled account by someone who was at a recent student organised event.

“We were invited guests of the most radical activists in town. They had a very good structure worked out, announced at the start of the meeting. 1 hour of ‘open mic’ on what cuts are affecting your workplace, community, sector or whatever, and what fightback is occurring (if any). 20 mins tea break. 2 hours of strategizing about where next – first in relation to education and then the wider cuts.
Of course, it only works if people respect the agenda set. And then the f**king deatheaters started with their boring set speeches. Do they not get it? This is not a rabble that needs rousing – they are already more f**king aroused than the constitutional revolutionaries, whose main objective is to win this vote, or that position. Egomaniacs sucking the air and life out of the room.

The students were too f**king civil – very good at reclaiming space from the establishment but haven’t figured out how to defend their space from sectarians. All they could do was politely remind people to stay on topic.”

You can see why she is furious. If ever there was a moment when the vanguard is running behind the popular mood insisting on its right to lead it is now. Pretending that your small group is the only leaders a movement needs is downright delusional. This could just be one of those occasions when the best thing to do is to let the movement run free and develop its own momentum.

The time to bring in politics will come soon enough. If two hours are set aside for a discussion on strategy does it really hurt to let people who are exploring political action for the first time fumble towards their own conclusions? It’s certainly preferable to hearing six people in a row say exactly the same thing. Any discussion on strategy quickly brings up questions about civil disobedience, the unions and the Labour Party. They could be allowed to emerge organically rather than be shoe-horned in because it’s this week’s key agitational slogan.

From this comes the question of democracy. Any aspirant Bolshevik can win a vote at a meeting by having a large enough group of co-thinkers in a room. If I’d a tenner for every time I’ve seen it I’d pay Philip Green’s tax bill. It’s a rubbish method. The only way you really win an argument is by changing people’s minds or articulating what is on their mind. That’s not the same as winning a vote and implies deliberately being a proportionately small part of something large.Twenty trots do not make a mood or a strategic direction.

It’s a poor analogy but it’ll do for the moment. Much of the socialist left had its thinking changed to some degree by the women’s movement. In return it offered a rounded world view, an internationalist perspective and an historical understanding (well, let’s pretend). That was not the same thing as being the women’s movement and it’s true this time round as well. 

11 responses to “Let the movement breathe”

  1. It’s interesting that you mention the wiggly hands thing. I encountered this for the first time in my life just yesterday, when I attended a meeting in the occupied space at Newcastle University. I assumed, though, that it was some kind of autonomist tradition, rather than a new invention. And I’d never encountered it before because autonomism has never previously reached as far as Newcastle. But maybe you’re right.

    Mind you, the meeting still went on too long. But it was productive in the end, getting our local protests organised for Thursday.

    I love that expletive-riddled message, by the way. Stirring stuff.

    Like

  2. It is from the autonomist tradition, but one that has obviously become much more widely adopted by people wanting to organize open democratic spaces.

    Obviously it can be used passive-agressively in response to self-criticism (see UCL occupation energetically wiggling hands as Aaron Porter described himself as having been spineless and dithering) but it does have advantages as described by Liam above.

    Like

  3. It’s a long-standing practice not a recent innovation.

    I think it’s alienating for non-activists. In our occupation we more or less stopped using it after the first few meetings which were repeatedly punctuated by non-politicos asking why people were waving their hands.

    Like

  4. hand-waving is American Sign Language for applause, to indicate support or agreement with something that someone has said. I think that it was originally incorporated as a sign of inclusion for deaf people and, afterwards, received some justification (sometimes) as being “less aggressive” and less disruptive than hand-clapping (ie you could show support for a statement without interrupting the speaker).

    Like

  5. Most of the students who are now activists were not activists just over a month or so ago. They are the ones doing the wiggly hands. So, I’m not following with the idea that it is alienating.

    Like

  6. LOVE this Liam. It really shows a refeshing respect for a genuine bona fide emerging mass movement and how revolutionaries should engage with activists rather than preach at and attempt to ‘lead’ them. Real leadership in action is not about… rounding up as many activists as you can behind old divisions and their respective slogans – but about respecting the genuine and profound politicisation that is emerging around us and facilitating the development of strategic thinking in order for the movement to grow and be clearer about the tasks ahead. There is no place for hectoring and demogogic speechifying – it alienates people (newly radicalised or not) and sucks the life out the positive energy that is around us now. Good on you! 🙂

    Like

  7. I first met this at a meeting to prepare for some climate change event about 4 years ago – I was also photographed, along with all other attenders by a small gaggle of police people outside the meeting hall.

    At a certain point though votes are necessary. In the women’s movement seeing voting as a problem was called by socialist feminists ‘the tyranny of structurelessness’. But on the whole I agree with Liam’s take on this. And as he says, ‘The time to bring in politics will come soon enough.’

    Like

  8. In the context of decision-making meetings hand-waving functions like ongoing indicative voting for particular proposals. In response to set speeches absent of particular proposals it functions as silent, less disruptive, applause. It can and is combined successfully with ‘normal’ voting, or may work with a ‘traditional autonomist’ form of consensus decision-making that includes dissent (‘stand aside’) and blocks (‘veto’). We may agree or disagree with this particular structure for decision-making, but it would be a mistake to confuse it with the tyranny of structurelessness (TS).

    In the interests of historical accuracy, the concept of the TS arrived fully-formed in an article of that name by Jo Freeman. It would be wrong to describe her as a socialist-feminist (see http://www.jofreeman.com/aboutjo/persorg.htm ). TS is a critique of informal elites, not forms of decision-making adopted at climate camp or any other autonomist-influenced movement. The publication history shows that it was the anarchist groups to we have to thank for reprinting Freeman’s article in pamphlet form in the UK from the early 1970s onwards. It is currently available in pdf format (still published by anarchists!) and well worth reading http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/pdfs/tyranny.pdf

    It would be quite wrong to claim it as a particularly socialist-feminist concept to set against the autonomist tradition.

    Like

  9. ‘The time to bring in politics will come soon enough.’ What they are doing IS politics. Not what trots have been used to for some time, but politics.

    Like

  10. […] revolutionary groups are being sidelined – or, at least, are having to learn how to follow as well as lead: Here is an expletive riddled account by someone who was at a recent student organised […]

    Like

  11. aftertrotsky: yes i’d say you are right. The movement must be allowed to breath and that means politics. As soon as the sects move in they will kill politics stone dead because they seek to serve not this movement and not even the end they claim to stand for but themselves.

    Like

Leave a reply to Jodley Cancel reply

Trending