climate camp questionnaire (& the viability of green liberalism)

si do you talk to your mother with that mouth?

seriously though what's it like talking with guy debords corpse in your mouth?

revol - stop derailing this thread now. Future off-topic posts will be deleted.

um - that they're both ideological devices which will be deployed in the interests of capital accumulation/empire? the material reality and the ideological/structural function are profoundly distinct, which is something modern ecologists don't seem to get at all...

This is already happening - water charging, water metering, reduction in rubbish collections...

Anyway if you have questions, could you start a new thread so that this one can be used for any questionnaire reponses, if anyone went to the camp?

Intentions

i)did you attend as part of an organised intervention by a group? which group?
No.

ii)what did you (or your organisation) hope to achieve in attending the climate camp?
Socialise. Bimble around drinking tea, making jokes about hippies super-gluing themselves to things. Political tourism/anthropology. Not get arrested. Avoid being trampled by a police horse.

iii)how far do you think you succeeded in those goals?
100%

iv)do you see a future for intervention in the modern green movement? what?
So far my activity has been restricted to suggesting that people do something else. It doesn't appear to be working. The subjective conditions are not in our favour at present. Climate change is the grand narrative of the moment. It's our nuclear MAD innit? Trying to get people to organise around access to social housing is just not as sexy, apparently.

Impressions.

v)what was your impression of the composition of camp? were there any particularly clear internal divisions (along whatever lines)?
well middle class, well white. Obv. there were differences on a political level, but it worked out quite harmoniously in practice. Apparently the SWPers based in the London barrio did some sort of take over of one of the marches. This might just be a rumour. tbh, I wouldn't really recognise the Plane Stupid people, I do recognise the EF! lot, so I will have missed out on any dynamics between the groups. Apparently about 40% of the people there were from London. Oxford, Leeds, Brighton typically well represented.

vi)Aufheben in their article on the anti-roads movement (The Struggle Against Roads) place strong emphasis on the (material) social relations forged in the course of the Anti-M11 campaign in particular. This camp was very much shorter, but nevertheless: were there any signs of comparable (inter-)subjective developments on the part of the inhabitants?
The locals brought cake, biscuits and alcohol to those staying the night outside BAA. Am I right in saying it's quite a culturally middle class area? Hardly Leyton...

vii) {overlap with the first section, a little, and in light of that last}What were your impressions of the direct actions? was there, for example, the self-discipline exercised in Rostock or the pacifism of the clowns in Edinburgh in evidence?
People I know went and had their first experience of any sort of direct action, and found it empowering - they successfully overcame police opposition in order to do what they wanted to do, and worked together to do it. I am not clear on how accurate it is to describe what went on at BAA as a "blockade". In that staff could have walked - though not driven - in any time they wanted. According to one theory, BAA had just told its staff to stay at home.

No one was masked up on the fingers demo. There was some police roughness, but hardly any arrests. Composition was very mixed - some experienced old EF! types, and a new more Plane Stupid type generation, my impression - could be wrong - quite middle class. There was no real anti-police violence - which wasn't really practical anyway, given the numbers and terrain.

From a certain POV, the most silly thing is that the "fingers"/more militant block got to exactly the same place and did exactly the same thing once they got there as the kids and community block. There was nothing more illegal about their proposed route that wasn't caused by the police blocking it... though I suppose there is something positive about not negotiating with police beforehand. And without the people willing to do that, there would have been no fear that led to the injunction, hence no publicity. The clowns also got to the same place and did the same thing. They took the bus there.

As far as I could see, once again, the action planning was carried out in a pseudo open way, with all the key decisions (apart from "we will met at 2pm, get into 5 columns, and storm off... somewhere!") being taken by a closed informal group. i.e. the route we left by was not decided in assembly. This is of course necessary in order that the filth don't know what's going to happen, but there it is.

I would be interested in the final piece - I'll PM you my e-mail. And if he doesn't respond otherwise, you should PM Tacks.

Did you hear that the police negotiator had to be replaced after, in a personal fit of pique, she superglued herself to something? Apparently it wasn't so much a disruptive political action, as a personal expression of frustration.

for clarification:

Do you mean become revolutionary materially or ideally (i.e. "pro-revolutionary"), and if the former do you think it's makes sense to say that anything other than the social revolution is materially social-revolutionary? Do you think the anti-roads movement was revolutionary? Does "revolutionary" mean the same thing as "politically valuable and worthwhile" (and if not, why is it a useful criterion of analysis; and if so what are the criteria of its material content)?

I agree that what you say about Aufheben's point is interesting, though I disgree with the definition of "lumpen" I think you're using. In consideration of that, do you say that the anti-roads movement was a working class movement? Have you read any of the Subversion journal articles on this? (Thanks to Terry for pointing these out.) Well good.

oh yeah, you should definitely PM Terry, he's working on a similar research concern with alot of detail.

To rewrite your question, did you mean class composition of the camp? Anyway there were divisions within the camp, the most notable was on the issue of resistance to capitalism. Monbiot and Hawkins both seemed to argue that what was needed to fight against climate change was the creation of an eco-authoritarian state, there was some minor support for this but the dominant feeling was that this was also a struggle against authoritarianism and state domination. This was echoed in the Turbulence Collective meeting (with around 300+ people in attendance) who did a reasonable job to further the politics of the camp and relate the cause of climate change to capitalism (which I'm sure 99% of attendees believe) but more importantly, locating this struggle in class terms. I can't repeat this point enuff. Though there were a visible liberal presence, reflective in part of peoples class backgrounds, there was a more dominant class focus within the camp. This was expressed by the number of people who had visited the Nippon Express Workers picket during the week - vice versa workers from the picket came down with their families, of which I and others had a chat with the shop steward over a beer.

So in terms of divisions, I would say that they were based on in part on class interests - the middle/upper class element would be less in favour of anarchy - i.e. non-systemic self-governance and perhaps, due to their class experience, see less importance in encompassing workers struggles. Others, like I have said, were more open to such things IMO.

During the direct action day, it seems that beyond everyone (especially locals) being supportive of the need for action, there seems to be just from observations a common hatred of the police (therefore state). All the repressive power and class relations were publicly manifested during that day, and this I think has meant a radicalisation of the "locals". One bit of "local"/Camper solidarity were the group of 20 year olds on bikes navigating for one of the bloc down side streets. People were also shouting "we don't want our houses bulldozed" at the riot police from there windows. It is interesting to think that if things develop it will be these examples and scenes which will educate those future struggles and it would that movement the locals will call for support.

I was not in Rostock, or with the clowns in Edinburgh. Though I would say that the five finger tactic seem to work and over stretch the cops. People had build wooden shields which were used as both offensive and defensive action, many people - as they say - were up for it - and to me there seemed to be less of a division between violence/non-violence than other things I had been on. People were quiet happy to have more confident people with shields stand in front of them, while others were pulling down fences or supporting the action in other non-confrontational ways.

I think it has the potential to develop situations which can influence and expand the current terrain of that struggle. By occupying the space of the radical element of the "green" movement, it is also has the benefit of existing in a very broad and open movement, at a time where the debate is not on the science of climate change but on how we can stop it. This creates the conflict between state reliance/delegation and individual/collective participation. By default, the climate camp initiative does not rely on state or corporations to solve the problem of climate change but on the need to construct a social movement to effect change. It is already expose capitalism as the root cause of climate change and offering possible alternatives.

We have seen the first test between the radical ecological anti-capitalist movement and what is a community in struggle against the heathrow expansion. We have also seen the linking up of strikers and campers during those days. There does seem to be a need (and desire) to suppress the eco-authoritarian statist agenda which were present at the camp, and also a need to futher link up with workers who could become important allies in this struggle.

will respond more to the rest of your comment but just quickly

Not at all and it is such a stupid slogan. On a similar note, the main bloc had as its banner "social change not lifestyle change", with around 500+ participants behind it. I don't for one second think there was a unified agreement on either banner, and shows that banner slogans are not necessarily a reflection of such initiatives

For those of you wanting a cheap laugh on this check out ian bones blog at ianbone.wordpress.com on his views on the climate camp.

Raw

p.s.

Si, I'm writing a little after thought on the climate camp. My main point is showing that there is a proved legitamacy in people coming together and organising who are not from a common material point in production - that is - people who are not workers as workers at a specific part of capital accumulation. To clarify further, gate gourmet workers all shared a "common material point of production" which meant there non-working caused a massive impact on the capital accumulation of BAA and its depencies. The people who attended the climate camp did not all come from the same industry, or point of production, therefore by being at the climate camp and "not work", meant there was not impact on capital (most were either on holiday, students, unemployed...etc). This lack of a common material point is inherent in these types of initiatives so to effect and have an impact on capital, the target is other workers and the circulation of goods, class struggle by proxy if you like. There are similarities to this in the unemployed workers movement in Argentina who have been excluded from production and therefore, to struggle means the hindrance and blocking of other workers (and goods). Same as the CPE movement, where students chose to block motorways and train lines to effect capital accumulation. This is very much work in progress but will post it to you soonish.

Btw where is the article going?

I saw no evidence of the five-finger tactic as used in Germany and it seemed to be mentioned mostly as a confidence-booster (no bad thing in the right circumstances) but the thing that this did have in common with Heiligendamm was that the groups which converged on where the police wanted them to be did so with little trouble, and when they went or appeared to want to go elsewhere they were pushed back - most of the police violence on Sunday was in my view because they believed those groups were going to attempt to block the motorway link to Heathrow (I base this on an assessment of the relative police numbers at different positions and overheard conversations), just as at Heiligendamm the pacifists were able to move in large numbers to the East Gate not because they outwitted or outmanoeuvred the police but because the police didn't care that they were there - the attempts by the BlockG8 hierarchy to organise a 'dignified retreat' and, when that failed, to concentrate all subsequent 'blockades' at this one gate strongly suggest if not confirm that this was actually a negotiated plan between the police and authoritarian pacifists all along.

• 4.5% of the UK population makes 44% of all flights (MORI Poll, 2001)
• In 2003, 96% of the passengers who used Heathrow were from socio-economic categories A, B and C1.
• At Stansted, where low cost carriers account for nearly all the flights, the average annual household
income of passengers exceeds £51,000.
• Social groups D and E in 2003 took on 6% of flights despite making up 27% of the population
• In 2001, about 10% of the population flew at least 3 times; 3% made more than 6 trips; of the 49%
who flew half made one trip

one of the banner drops that appeared in south wales during the climate camp.

i)did you attend as part of an organised intervention by a group? which group?

Yes. South Wales Anarchists

ii)what did you (or your organisation) hope to achieve in attending the climate camp?

Take the site, organise the running of gate. Set up our neighbourhood structures, kitchen and power systems along with friends from Bath & Bristol. (Westside hood)

iii)how far do you think you succeeded in those goals?

100%

iv)do you see a future for intervention in the modern green movement? what?

Yes. lots of things...

Impressions.

v)what was your impression of the composition of camp? were there any particularly clear internal divisions (along whatever lines)?

Loads of middle class there. bless em. plenty of liberals too. Lots of old EF! peeps. most many NGO people whilst I was there but I left early.

vi)Aufheben in their article on the anti-roads movement (The Struggle Against Roads) place strong emphasis on the (material) social relations forged in the course of the Anti-M11 campaign in particular. This camp was very much shorter, but nevertheless: were there any signs of comparable (inter-)subjective developments on the part of the inhabitants?

The landlady in the Crown gave us loads of bags of crisps when we had a pint there on the tuesday night.... Actually this can't be stressed enough, people living in the surrounding area were alot more than supportive, I had several people bring up the fact that no-one seemed to know their homes were going to be destroyed until the camp turnned up. Though the old 'activist/local' divide appeared in place whilst I was there.
We had a workshop on the South Wales LNG pipeline which we got someone from Cilfrew Residents Association down to speak at, and I think we missed an opportunity to have her speak to the local residents as their reaction to the influx of activists was fantastic (ie. they learnt tactics then got on with it themselves)

vii) {overlap with the first section, a little, and in light of that last}What were your impressions of the direct actions? was there, for example, the self-discipline exercised in Rostock or the pacifism of the clowns in Edinburgh in evidence?

I went back to work on the wednesday so missed the days of action. Our neighbourhood meetings were full of talk on tactics. Much of our neighbourhood by the that point seemed to be new to protests or people who hadn't been active in any form for some time and were somewhat naive about what they should expect when dealing with police.
We haven't had a group de-brief yet, so I dunno really.

On a total side note I was reading "Defending the Earth: A Dialogue Between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman" whilst at the camp was was ideal for the kind of political discussions I was having....

Capital was being totally rational in its own terms regarding roads. Capitalism requires an efficient road network. Most factories and supermarkets today work on a "just in time" basis. The motorways are the arteries of this system.

posi,

I split my answer about the Shoreham/revolutionary activity etc. to here: http://libcom.org/forums/thought/political-activity-charity-work-etc-split-climate-camp-questionnaire-26082007

basically a crowd in an open space splits into five columns and advances in a dispersed fashion on police lines, stretching them until i) weak points appear, which are then driven through or ii) the cops are outmanoeuvred and withdraw. much in evidence at the German G8.