In the Wake....After the G20 : Melbourne Indymedia

In the Wake…..After G20
Please forgive any typos – time is of the essence.

So what happened at the G20 in Melbourne? On one hand it was business as usual. The G20 met and seemed to function as planned with both agreement and disagreement amongst the assembled representatives of the capitalist global order. Predictably, despite the boosterism of groups like Make Poverty History, the G20 did nothing to ameliorate even the most horrific consequences of capitalism. Yet something happened outside: a relatively small group of protesters produced a political event, a moment of rupture that is full of possibilities and dangers. What we do now after that event, how we trace the lines of struggle that it opened up is crucial. There are both opportunities and pitfalls ahead and the telling of the tale, the reflection on our experiences and the sharing of stories is important. Because there is not just one version of what happened: indeed part of the power and joy experiencing something like this mobilization is being part of collective moment that has many points of origins and many experiences. In the normal daily life of capitalism we have only two views: that of the machinery of public opinion, and that of the isolated individual. In moments of upsurge something different happens. Lets find a richness in and continue to enrich this difference.

But there are forces that work to close down the possibilities that have been opened by such an event. In this case they are police repression, the implementation of a simulation of the events by the media, and division and recrimination amongst those that took part. It is understandable that those that have gone beyond the law want to protect themselves, it is also understandable that the power of the media is so great that even those who took part in the actions can feel disorientated by the way their own participation is reflected back to them, and in a movement that is both small and diverse, that lacks a common language of communication, differences can often become divisions – especially when so much is on the line. This does not take away from how important it is to resist these things, to keep the space open, and try to connect it with others and other struggles.

I want to deal with two points here:

Firstly violence. It is clear that violence happened: both “sides” used force. But it is wrong to reduce all that happened to violence or to see the violence as only an aberration. It needs to be placed in perspective. From media reports the force used by protestors despite appearing “spectacular” was actual very minimal. The most intense use of force was directed at objects: the destruction of a police van, the dismantling of barricades and so on. The physical attacks on police officers, according to media reports, seem to have produced only one real injury – a broken wrist. Obviously this is unpleasant to the officer but it is not more substantial than a serious bar fight. The violence of the police, which has been largely ignored by the corporate media, was the reverse. Armed with batons and sanctioned by the state, the police violence was direct at living bodies. It is obscene to see these things as equivalents.

But also the usual rhetorical defence of the use of force by protestors as ‘self-defence’ cannot be applied. It is clear that some sections of the carnival did pre-emptively use force on the barriers, the police lines and the now infamous police van. Each of the actions that made up these moments of confrontation cannot be reduced to each other. Rather they have to be judged soberly and critically. Which actions were attempts to generate creative disturbances, which cemented our co-operation, and which were escalations that were counter-productive? Did sometimes the emotional euphoria of attacking the property of the state detract from subverting the social relations that made up the state? How are we going to deal with the consequences?

It is also important that the seemingly “exciting” nature of the use of force does not detract from the other actions, the other manifestations of creativity that people mobilised. If there was value in Saturday’s actions (and I believe there was) it was the combination of people experimenting with co-operation, horizontal and autonomous organising and a militant attitude to the state. Whilst again each moment can not be made equivalent to the other – throwing a garbage bin is not the same as locking on to car is not the same a playing music or dressing as a clown and so on – the points of inter-relationship where rich and important. It is also crucial to remember what came before the actions. The attempts at creating moments of alternative social relations at things such as a space outside and the multitude conversations and debates that went on are just as important as any moment of confrontation. They are in many ways the way we give substance to our dreams

Secondly the Arterial Block. It is crucial to refuse either a romanticisation or demonisations of this group. At best they seemed to have been a handful of affinity groups that with a minimum of preparation and internal organising attempted a number of the more confrontational initiatives. But so too did many others. Perhaps the only really difference is that the Arterial Block had a public name that the media and police could hang on to. It would be a mistake to see any group as homogenous internally or exercising hegemony over other elements of the mobilisation. If anything the actions taken by this or that section just opened up space for others to fill. The media attempt to portray the Arterial Block as some kind of international paramilitary association is not only totally wrong and an attempt to establish the grounds for the repression of those involved, it also works to create hierarchies within the movement: a hard-core that leads others. Refuse this attempt.

So what to do now? I think firstly care for each other. Obviously this means establishing consistent and on going solidarity with those that face charges or suffered police violence. Some very apparent tasks of support will appear over the next few weeks. Don’t back down from these. But care in the more general sense is also important. Understand that sometimes after such an event we may feel a range of emotions, some good some bad and creating the space to relax and share love for each other is crucial. But more than this in the face of the state and media we should not close inwards. Rather we can make many public spaces to reflect on and debate what happened in a way that is critical but not blaming, nuanced and open minded. Also the energy, the rebellion, the determination and militancy we experienced shouldn’t be thrown away. Continue to organise, in whatever forms you choose on what ever scale. The more the daily projects of creating alternatives and resistances flow into big mobilisations and vice versa the better.

I hope to see, and I hope to see it soon, many different stories being told, many threads of experiences, of criticism, of celebration, of differences that can weave together something great. Possibilities have been opened, forces of repression are being organised. I feel if we base ourselves in a democratic, horizontal, autonomous and open praxis of resistances then perhaps we can grasp these possibilities.

With love and solidarity
Dave

I don't think the movement can afford to ignore the reprecussions of the violence over the weekend. Six years ago - at the original S11 protests - what was broadly called the 'anti-globalisation' movement was on the verge of building a mass base.

After police violence, and violence by agent provocateurs, the movement found itself progressively marginalised. Memories are long, and it is no co-incidence that the movement only managed to rally about 3,000 for the protests at the weekend. The 'Make Poverty History' movement, on the other hand, managed 15,000. Rather than retreating into a navel-gazing sub-culture, we need to link up with these people to build a truly mass movement: a movement that goes beyond calling for greater levels of aid: to argue for fair trade, reform of the IMF and World Bank, and defeat of the 'structural adjustment', privatisation-driven agendas of these organisations. Defeating the General Agreement on Trade in Services is also part of this struggle.

To build a mass movement, though, you cannot afford to indulge in a subculture of confrontation: where the desire for confrontation is only held by a small minority, and is certain to alienate the protest organisers from a potential mass base. If anything, protest organisers need to begin preparing now to ensure that the weekend's events never take place again. Our struggle is to make fair trade the 'common sense' of this country and the world. This is achieved through consciousness raising activities - not ultra-militancy by a relative minority who, in effect, marginalise the entire movement.

After the G20 I saw 2 dudes talking about their protest experiences, comming out of a SEVEN ELEVEN!

Come ON guys, solidarity and all that -- but man! There was a Ma and Pa shop still open just down the STREET.

i feel like this needed to be said.

In solidarity with the tens of thousands slaughtered in SW Asia. In solidarity with Greek and Mexican anarchs, Palm Island people, Macca Fields, Redfern, Mudgee, Dubbo and Tonga folks. This A -bloc action was righteous and reminded me of Harpers Ferry - John Browns bodys gone but his fighting spirit lives on.

Cong-rats to all the pacifists - I'm not dissing anyone who went, and thanks to the A-bombers who restoreth my flagging faith in anarchy. This was small scale but very scalable and a textbook lesson in the power of diversity.

regardless of the atrocities that are occurring around the world - the fact is that the violence marginalised the protest - and continued violence will deprive the movement of a mass base. 100 anarchists - or agent provocateurs perhaps - cannot change the world.

Here in Australia the best we can do is consicouness raise, and pressure our government not to ratify further additions to GATS, and to push for reform of the IMF and World Bank. This means broadening the movement - reaching out to the 'make poverty history' movement - and broadening its aims and objectives beyond poverty relief - to real reform of the social and economic systems. We can't do this if we alienate these people with senseless violence.

In some cases - such as defending a picket line - militant tactics are justified. It can be linked with a clear objective of defending the jobs and conditions of those concerned. Smashing up a McDonalds and attacking police because they are seen to be part of 'the state' - achieves nothing - is not linked to any clear objective. Therefore - marginalising the movement as it does - it cannot be justified.

What a load of twaddle Dave. Violence attracts violence as manifested in my want to see an over weight police officer smash the head of your "activists".

These thoughts only came to be after seeing the wanton destruction of public property and the threat of physical abuse to those people that accept a miniscule wage to protect us all.

The global giants you target understand that cultural change can only be achieved via consistent and sustained marketing of the "new way".

The actions of your "activists" has turned me - and likely many others - from a potential anti-globalisation supporter into a passive observer who is more likely to voice concern about the activist than the global giant.

Steve

P.S. If time is of the essence you must type very quickly

thanks Dave, something like this needed to be said, and soon. earlier would have been better, but I'm sure you, like all of us, have have had a lot to think about over the last few days.

As a clown, on the front line for a large part of Saturday, I have to say that nearly all of the arguments I've read in the corporate news, blogs, and indy media have failed, simply in that they refuse to acknowledge, as you have done, that violence, whether by cops or protestors, is not black and white. firstly, it can be argued that threatening behaviour can be violent, sometimes even more so than physical violence. then, physical violence in itself has numerous shades of grey, from violence against property, through warning violence to outright kill-you-violence.

I would say that it always depends on the context. In melbourne on the weekend, I had to draw the line at the thrown champagne bottles, and the bin. I don't really care about the police truck, and I thought the destruction of the barricades was great, and needed to be done (Steve C - destruction of public property, no, removal of public property being used AGAINST the public, yes). but I don't want anyone to get hurt, no matter what "side" they are on. violence against people is what the STATE is supposed to be good at. committing it yourself is just stooping to their level. there was some argument thrown about arguing, against Weber's Thesis, that the state should not have a monopoly on violence. seems to me that that's not a good excuse. the only places I can think of where the state doesn't currently have a monopoly on violence are places like Iraq, Sudan, Sri Lanka. places in the middle of a war. That's not what I want. the only possible creation from a state overthown by violence is another state controlled by violence.

I was pretty pissed of when glass bottles started being thrown at the cops, as well as the bin. I was really fucking angry when a 3-inch piece of the bottom of a champagne bottle thrown from the back of the crowd hit my girlfriend in the back of the neck. The possible consequences are obvious, though luckily nothing happened. basically, that's not just violent, it's fucking cowardly. if that person wanted to be violent, they should have been up the front, with no weapons. then they could try to prove something.

I was at A Space Outside, and met or saw a majority of the 80-100 strong Arterial Block. My first impression was of a large number of passionate individuals, committed to creating a better world. That impression still exists, regardless of the (what seemed to me) about 10-15 who went overboard, and the 5 or so cowardly fuckwits who may or may not have been part of it. Congratulations to the rest of you, I think you did a fucking awesome job, and blow the Sunday Herald/Age/Herald Sun.

I think Dave, that possibly what was needed was some kind of debrief meeting. the party wouldn't have been suitable, and the picnic was too public for some (unfortunately I had to leave too early for it myself). I appreciate that what you're doing is part of that rehabilitation, and I thank you for it. Seems to be the only broadly-centred, non-apologist for either "side," response that I've seen so far, so cheers

ned