A-Infos (en) Britain, Anarchist Federation and the climate camp

An AF leaflet for the Camp for Climate Action 2009 events http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/ 
talking place in London and elsewhere can now be downloaded or viewed online. We also 
introduced a discussion at the London camp on the Friday, Making our workplaces Red, Black 
and Green. Read on for details, a report summarising the discussions had & a new 
perspective paper by AF members who participated in the camp. ---- Making our workplaces 
Red, Black and Green ---- Update1 : read report summarising the discussions had.
http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/127 ---- Making our workplaces Red, Black and 
Green: Report ---- Icon_article Published: Saturday 29 August 2009 15:14 by Anarchist 
Federation ---- Tagged as: climate_camp environmentalism ---- Neighbourhoods: climate_camp

   Report from workshop hosted by the anarchist federation on how to best build links 
between the activism of the Social Ecology movement and those in the workplace.

  The workshop posed a number of questions that we felt were currently important to the 
future development of the social ecology movement:

- Why, in spite of the fact that climate change disproportionately effects the urban and 
agrarian poor, is there a percieved divide between working people and activists in the 
Green movement?

- How do we meet the challenge of a "Green" capitalism and how does this impact upon our 
movement?

- How do we interact with existing working class organisations and orgamise in the work place?

   The meeting was well attended with a variety of people from diverse backgrounds. It was 
felt across the meeting that the issues being addressed were important ones and that there 
was a need to spread this debate wider throughout the Green movement. The recent 
occupation in Vestas and the continuing solidarity efforts amongst the workers featured 
strongly in the discussion, with a worker and a number of activists from the campaign 
contributing to the debate.

Key issues arrising from the discussion included:

* Nationalisation and the state - there was disagreement as to what extent the state will 
play a role in averting the ecological crisis. Many Marxists and some from within Workers 
Climate Action felt that the nationalisation of certain industries represented a possible 
strategic gain for the Green agenda. Others felt that nationalisation had historically 
been used to contain working class struggle and that there was a possibility of the 
militancy of the Green movement being likewise diverted into the existing mechanisms of 
the state. The utility of the state as a tool for social change was also questioned as 
well as its role in the continued maintenance of the capitalist system. Similarly, notions 
of horiozontalism and self-organisation conflict with support for the intervention of the 
state on ecological issues.

* Workers tied into the carbon economy - there was a general consensus that workers should 
not be held responsible for how socially productive their work is. Workers who are 
currently working within carbon-intensive industries, e.g. car manufacture, energy 
production, need our support. We should be helping them gain more control over their 
wokrplaces so they themselves can shape the future of their industries.

* Medium vs. Long-term demands - many within the trade union movement identifed existing 
resources that could be used to forward ecological reforms in the workplace (particularly 
courses provided by the TUC). It was also emphasised that these were a good way of 
generating enthusiasm amongst workers for ecology on a grassroots level. Day-to-day shop 
floor demands are important and Green issues should be encompassed within this.  However, 
there was also a danger in loosing sight of long-term anti-capitalist objectives. We 
should also be seeking to challenge the very nature of work and the interests it serves.

* Green austerity - the dangers of austerity politics was discussed. Not only was it felt 
that this represented a potential barrier to the further development of our movement but 
it was also felt that this could lead to authoritarianism in the movement. The strength of 
corporate and mainstream Green politics was also idenitifed as a danger to our movement.

* Urgency - The sense of urgency that has been placed upon us by the ecological crisis 
could be regarded as a useful tool for spreading our message. Capitalism is so bad, it is 
actually messing up the planet. However, it was also felt that this urgency could lead 
people to seemingly "easy" solutions that actually divert the energies of the movement.

Email Contact email: info@afed.org.uk



Update 2: perspective paper by AF members who participated in the camp
http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/state/122-climate-camp-and-us-a-perspective-paper.html

Climate Camp and Us

A perspective paper produced by members of the Anarchist Federation within climate camp 2009.

Last climate camp an open letter was circulated by radical, anti-capitalist elements 
raising concerns that the movement was coming under greater influence by reformist and 
state-led approaches to tackling climate change.

A more developed version of this letter is available here and was later published by Shift 
magazine. The original argued broadly for the adoption of PGA (Peoples Global Action) 
hallmarks as core principals for the camp in its organisation and objectives.

This year the debate continued as libertarian communist and anarchist communist activists 
were invited to debate calls for authoritarian solutions to climate change within the 
movement (for example calls for increased taxation, state surveillance and austerity 
politics). Speakers addressed a range of areas in which they considered these approaches 
were gaining prominence. Key points included the over reliance on scientific facts as a 
justification for environmental action, relegating to secondary concerns over 
social-justice, an assumption within the movement that the state may become a valid tool 
in challenging and combating climate change and the general dangers of the state 
incorporating the green movement and stripping it of its radical tendencies. Overall, 
there was a desire to strengthen analysis of ecological issues with an understanding of 
wider economic and political realities. In short, you can not wage war against climate 
change while ignoring the class war. Class is central to the maintenance of the current 
inequalities in the economic and political system and in only in challenging this can we 
hope to bring our movement closer to radical, social transformation. While the ecological 
crisis is a pressing and potentially catastrophic issue for our class it should also be 
understood as one in a series of crisis, economic and political, that are result of the 
contradictory character of the capitalist system.

A lenghthy debate followed amongst campers in attendance. The points that were most 
commonly raised were:

     * The possibility of the state as a strategic tool for our movement,
     * The urgency of climate change, and the time scale we have to work with,
     * Not seeing the contradiction between building bottom-up organisations and calling 
for top-down solutions,
     * Discussions on coercion versus lifestyle change and
     * What "our" (ie. anti-authoritarian) alternatives are.


As a consequence of this debate we felt it was now important to build a better 
understanding of our relationship to this movement and what, as anarchist communist 
militants, our future place was in it. It has become increasingly obvious that, despite a 
commitment to direct action and horizontalism in organisation, anti-statism is by no means 
a widely held principle inside of this movement. The climate camp is moving further and 
further away from the radical, anti-capitalist politics that was represented by its 
precursor organisations, e.g Earth First!, the 90s road protests, Reclaim the Streets. 
There is a clear lack of both political analysis and experience throughout the camp. While 
this movement has equipped itself with the skills (direct action, media etc.) and the 
knowledge (scientific analysis) to intervene in the climate change debate it has not 
embarced the political questions that still linger around the future direction of our 
movement.

There is a real danger that this lack of debate and discussion will serve only to weaken 
Climate Camp. This is most strongly evidenced in the wholly uncritical way that many Green 
activists have adopted the strategy and tactics of the traditional Left as ecological 
campaigning has spread into the workplace. Calls for nationalisation, eco-lobbying and 
work within the trade union bureaucracies (solutions typically associated with old_labour 
and the authoritarian Left) have been widely accepted as legitimate tools in our struggle. 
The "anti-capitalism" that is common amongst camp participants is one that objects to 
capitalism in its excesses,i.e. in the destruction of the planet, not in its everyday 
functioning. With the prospects of a "Green capitalism" on the horizon, this leads us to 
telling questions over the commitment of these activists in the face of a potentially 
carbon-free, but nonetheless capitalist, economy. Without an analysis of the problems 
presented by capitalism and an understanding of the historical successes and failures of 
the working movement we leave ourselves widely exposed to recuperation by an existing 
political and social elite (from Right to Left).

We feel the camp is at a cross roads. Much of the radical base (and wider radical 
anti-capitalist movement) are slipping away from the camp and its ideas are being lost. 
This is reflected most strongly in the changed dynamics and culture in this years camp. A 
lack of commitment to mass action and the softly, softly approach of the police has 
transformed aspects of Climate Camp to more of a festival than a political gathering. this 
is despite the fact that the images of the G20 and police brutality are still strong 
amongst many. The debates and discussions that have been prominent in the neighbourhoods 
are largely concerned with the anti-social behaviour of campers on site, not our ability 
to forward our movement. There has even been some approval of allowing the police to enter 
our autonomous space in the spirit of future "good relations". In truth, the only real 
political work that has come out of this camp is the "eco-lobbying" of the media team, 
aided by media-friendly direct actions on certain key infastructure. In the Yorkshire 
village we celebrated the discussion of carbon trading on newsnight, not the disruptive 
actions of the activists. These are developments that are occuring external to the camp. 
We are spectators in our own spectacle as we search desperately through the newsheets of 
the bourgeois media for approval of our actions.


Whilst it is true that anti-statism is not a stated principle of the camp, we argue that 
true anti-capitalism cannot be seperated from anti-statism. The state is fundamental to 
the continued functioning of capitalism. As anarchist communists, our preference is to 
dissociate from the state structures, reject their hierarchy and recognise them as 
incapable of both preventing climate change and creating a better world. To instead focus 
on inclusive, participatory solutions that work from the grass roots up throughout 
educating each other about the alternatives to capitalist society, how we operate and by 
extension how we see an anarchist-communist society operating. The goal of stopping 
climate change is important, but it is as equally important as and dependent upon 
radically changing society. The state has never played a progressive role in society. Its 
purpose is to secure, maintain and promote the development of capitalism. Where radical 
movements have arisen (in workers struggles, suffrage movements etc) it has been the role 
of the state in combating these and repressing them. Where the state can not sustainebly 
maintain its violent oppression, it incorporates demands from the movement into its 
existing power structures. The best example of this is the trade union movement, once the 
spearhead of workers rights struggles against the injustices of capitalism, they were 
considered radical and dangerous. Union activists faced imprisonment, persecution in their 
local communities and repression in the workplace. But it became apparent to capital and 
the state that this oppression wasn't sustainable, and that their reactions simply 
encouraged workers to revolt. The solution was recuperation, to legalise unions, 
incorporate them into the structures of the workplace and give them a (minor) role to 
play. This greatly affected the revolutionary potential of unions, and comparing the 
modern trade union movement to that of the past is a testament to its affect in quelling 
the call for radical social change. Past radical movements have been recuperated in the 
same way, and there is a very real danger of the climate camp being turned from a movement 
for social change into a lobbying tool for state reform.

With regards to the crisis that we face - climate chage - estimates for the time we have 
left vary from 10 years, 100 months, 5 years ahead, or years in the past depending on who 
you talk to. The one agreement is that time is of the essence. There is a broad assumption 
amongst our critics that the state is able to act more efficiently than the anarchist 
"alternative" we are proposing. The simplest argument to raise here is that the state, 
capitalism and its way of managing society have gotten us thus far. Their way of running 
the world has landed us in climate chaos, with a minority of the world exploiting the 
majority of its resources irresponsibly. A more in depth analysis of the problem comes 
when we disregard who got us here and ask who will get us out. The state's purpose is to 
secure the status of the capitalist elite. It exists to ensure they are free to exploit 
the rest of us, live in luxury and do as they please. We have to raise the question of how 
this institution will act as drastically as is needed in order to combat climate change? 
Is it able to act against the capitalists who hold its reins?

The origin of climate camp's politics are in radical direct action to inspire and 
demonstrate how a more ecological society will work. The only way a climate crisis can be 
averted is to radically change society. Only by a conscious effort of every person to act 
more responsibly can we change how we operate, how we produce, consume (or more 
importantly NOT "consume") and live. But we believe the only way to accomplish this is 
from below, by inspiration, example and education. Not by taxation, involving the state in 
our lives and encouraging them to monitor our actions. How can we possibly preach the need 
for responsibility and reduced consumption whilst with its two hands the state continues 
to feed and protect capitalism's excesses and beat down any alternatives movements? 
Likewise, it is naive to believe that top-down state control and bottom-up social 
movements should be working side by side to combat climate change. Suggesting that state 
control can co-exist with a movement that advocates social change and a radical alteration 
to our lifestyles is not only counter-productive it is completely irrational. The state 
doesn't want us to change, it certainly doesn't want us to stop being good happy consumers 
who perpetually buy new cars, shop at super-markets and keep voting for things to stay the 
same. If ultimately all we want is better laws and state intervention on climate change 
then why participate in a movement that openly breaks the law and challenges the power of 
the state?

There have been some very positive developments within the camp. The involvement of 
campers in the recent Vestas dispute and the Tower Hamlets strike have displayed a 
commitment to break out of the Green activist ghetto. Likewise, the importance of 
workplace organisation as a critical tool in anti-capitalist struggle is gaining greater 
credibility. This is the direction we need to take our struggle, expand our movement, 
generalise our demands and take our place amongst a continuing culture of working class 
resistance. We have no doubt that anarchist communists belong inside of this camp. The 
positive examples displayed by the organisation of the camp and its decision making 
structure are important. Climate camp potentially represents a critical weapon in workers 
struggle, bringing the lessons of collective living and horizontalist organising to a 
class that is being battered by the economic crisis. The future political direction of the 
camp is key. We need to exapnd the debate and seek clarification on the direction of our 
movement. When political conservatives, corporations, even fascists are "turning green" it 
is no longer sufficient to simply do "everything we can" to avert the coming crisis. At 
the end of our speech we posed a question to the Climate Camp and we feel that still, 
collectively we are far from reaching a definitive answer. Do we want to simply change the 
way that the current economy is managed or do we want to build a truly radical society? Do 
we want the bread, or do we want the whole fucking bakery?

See also: Meet the Green Boss - climate camp leaflet, discussion & report

Email Contact email: info@afed.org.uk


MM2 Fri: 10:30-11:30

A short, introductory discussion outlining the history of ecological struggles in the 
workplace. This will be followed by an open debate/discussion focusing on some key 
practical issues: - How do we challenge the perceived divide between the workers and 
ecological movement? Why is it important? - What are the limitations of “Green” trade 
unions and how do we re-connect with rank-and-file workers? - What could a “Green New 
Deal” mean for us? How do we interact with workers tied into the carbon economy?


Download leaflet PDF: Meet the Green Boss, Same as the Old Boss
http://www.afed.org.uk/pdfs/afed_climate_camp_meet_the_green_boss.pdf

Alternatively, click images to view online, or read text and comments on Indymedia UK
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/08/436924.html

  Meet the green boss, same as the old boss...

A brief look at some of the reasons why Climate Camp's so important, and some of the 
dangers it faces.

We all know why Climate Camp's so important, right? We all know how quickly climate change 
is getting out of control, we've all heard the terrifying predictions about just how bad 
things are going to get, and we've all reached that point where we realise that apathy and 
terrified paralysis just aren't good enough, and we need to start acting now.

But actually, there's more to camp than just that. The actions and the big debates aren't 
the only valuable things about Climate Camp; it's also exciting because of the way it's 
run – from the bottom up, with everyone having a chance to get involved in 
decision-making. This openness is a huge contrast to our everyday lives, where (whether we 
work, study, or try to survive on pitiful state benefits) we have little or no say over 
what we do or how we do it. At its best, Climate Camp isn't just a way of helping us move 
towards a saner world, it's a tiny glimpse of what that world might look like.

Just as we can overlook some of the things that make camp so great, it's also easy to miss 
some of the dangers that we face. At first, the enemy seems obvious – it's the fossil fuel 
industry and all the other companies making big profits from killing our planet. But when 
we start trying to act, things get more complicated – before we can ever approach the 
power stations or corporate headquarters, we have to deal the police, who are there to 
protect the rich and powerful, and are happy to use violence to stop us having a say. And, 
of course, the police don't act independently – they're just the most visible part of the 
state, that massive body that's decided that direct action is a crime, but environmental 
destruction is not, and will come down hard on any challenge to its authority. And the 
problem doesn't end there – before we can take on the state, we also need to tackle the 
arguments of those people inside our movement who insist that, because the crisis is so 
urgent and the state is so powerful, we need to be using that power to stop climate change.

When anarchists say that we can't use the state for our own ends, that's not us rejecting 
ideas that work because of our own abstract principles - that's us rejecting ideas that 
don't work because they don't work. Unlike Climate Camp, the state is not democratic, the 
violence it uses to crush opposing voices (like the camp in London during the G20 earlier 
this year) makes that clear. Calling for the state to tackle climate change means calling 
for the state to be made stronger, which in turn means making us weaker. Companies don't 
care about the climate because they exist to make money, and the state exists to protect 
the market economy, so any real, meaningful action against those companies can only be 
against the state, not through it.

What does all this mean in practice? We don't have all the answers, no one does, but we 
have a few suggestions about how our movement can be most effective. First, we should 
openly celebrate the camp's roots in the radical, anti-capitalist environmental movement, 
and the way that those roots influence the camp today. Living and making decisions 
communally as part of the camp is better than the crap we have to put up with in normal 
life, and we shouldn't be shy about saying this.

Secondly, we need to avoid getting divided over the question of militant vs. "fluffy" 
tactics - the police attacks on the London camp earlier this year showed that they're 
willing to attack totally non-violent protesters, so there's no point in avoiding 
militancy to try and avoid provoking the police. We'll never stop climate change if we 
stick to the limits of what the police will let us do, and at times it will be necessary 
to use force to break out of their control.

Third, we need to be a lot bigger than we are now. That means that we need to be careful 
to avoid seeming elitist or moralistic. Yes, changing our lifestyles is important and it's 
frustrating that people are so slow to realise how big the problem is, but no-one will 
want to listen to us if we come across as telling them off for not being better people. 
Collective action is far more effective than individual action anyway, so our priority has 
to be persuading people to get active, not lecturing them about renewable lightbulbs.

Fourth, of course, we need to constantly be on the watch for our enemies trying to find 
ways to use us. Green is big, and getting bigger, so we're already having to deal with 
capitalists and politicians trying to find ways to use our arguments to boost their 
popularity or bank balances. From biofuels to carbon credits, they've got no end of ideas 
that won't do much to fight global warming, but are great for making money. Whether it's 
buying green products or trusting the government to pass green laws, we need to expose 
these dead-end paths so we can be clear about putting forward real alternatives.

One of AF
- e-mail: info AT afed DOT org DOT uk
- Homepage: http:// 
http://www.afed.org.uk/news-and-events/120-meet-the-green-boss-climate-camp-leaflet.html
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en