Once again this year direct action orientated, largely anarchist, Mayday protests, unsanctioned by the state, made headline news, especially in London. So routine has this become that it is difficult to remember that it was only in 1999 that the process of reclaiming Mayday in London began.
Mayday has become the one time in the year when anarchism or, more pointedly, anarchists, receive widespread coverage of their activities. Problematically, much of the attention is negative, portraying us as largely violent hooligans, not least in articles written by those employed to recuperate our ideas (liberals such as Vidal & Monbiot). Yet in the years 2000 to 2002, despite the negative coverage and the state’s disinformation and over-reaction, our activities received a relatively large degree of support. This resulted in significant numbers turning out to clearly anti-capitalist and anti-state protests.
This year saw more of the same, but on a much lesser scale. This partly reflected the concerns of the state and ruling class in the face of the massive anti-war protests and a slight increase in workers struggles, hence the need to play down protests (as evidenced by the non-reporting of many anti-war direct actions, and the offensive against the fire-fighters). Bizarrely, and probably unconsciously, the media picked up on the fact that people opposed the war on Iraq precisely because they oppose senseless violence, suffering and destruction. In a twisted and hypocritical way they portrayed the Mayday protests as likely to result in exactly that. The demonisation of Mayday protests was much sharper and focused, potential participants were referred to from the outset as rioters, and the events as riots, despite the fact that none of the previous Mayday protests resulted in a single prosecution for riot.
Meanwhile, the London Mayday Collective operated off a very short organisational run in to the day. Given the intense level of anti-war and other activity this was unavoidable, although the failure to publicise properly the initial meetings was not. The Collective, correctly in our view, focused its activities on this capitalist war, and on two of the engines of capitalism driving the pursuit of the war – the arms & oil industries. It gambled on the recent anti-war anger fuelling much greater dissent on Mayday. Sadly this was a miscalculation, so whilst the column inches of negative media was less this year, so was the positive response to it, and so was the turnout on the day.
After five years of anti-capitalist, largely anarchist, attempts to reclaim Mayday, clearly we are at a point where we need to stop and think about both the validity of the protests and the way we organise them (or rather why so few do actually organise them). As supporters of Mayday actions, we back the view that Mayday is both an important day to celebrate historical working class struggles, as well as a focus for expressing our solidarity and desires in the here and now. There does however need to be a much wider debate on the politics we seek to put forward, the strategic aims of our movement and in how we combine this in action. In this sense, Mayday cannot be seen in isolation, but rather as symptomatic of the problems facing the anti-capitalist movement as a whole.
Within the movement we can discern four main responses to Mayday. The first is localism. The argument here is that we should do something in ‘our community’ rather than in central London. Leaving aside whether there can be said to be any community under the rule of capital, we see no contradiction between ongoing local activity and participation in occasional mass actions. There are many who have had no difficulty combining the two.
The second objection is that the Mayday event is not focused on class struggle. In this view class struggle is seen to be exclusively strikes and workplace activity and, when you scratch the surface, all too often reveals a belief that trade unions are the organisations of the working class. Logically therefore we should attend the trade union march. As revolutionaries, we reject the idea that the unions represent the class, what they actually represent is a layer of labour bureaucracy. The trade union march is as irrelevant as it was five years ago and - alongside the Countryside Alliance march - it remains the only demonstration promoted by the state.
A third strand is to view Mayday as a pointless (or at least ill-thought out) one-off confrontation with the state, on their territory playing into their hands, which to a degree it was. The counterpoint to this is the need to ‘do something now’. After all London Mayday brought 3-4000 protesters out, at numerous actions, taking our opposition to the front doors of the ruling capitalist class, saying fuck you despite the threats. It is this last point of view that held sway within the collective for the last two years, with the result that discussion of the political and even strategic aims of Mayday are pushed firmly into the background whilst consideration is given only to immediate tactical concerns.
As a result of these disagreements, and also because of the intense activity of many activists in anti-war and other work, the 2003 London Mayday Collective was not only smaller, but represented a much narrower section of the movement. From the outset there was a lack of political discussion, with many activists seemingly content to accept that there was broad agreement, but this led to many disagreements being papered over. Whilst true that time was short, this was an excuse rather than the reason for this state of affairs. On the one hand, many seem to have only the vaguest critique of capitalist social relations and are consequently unwilling to subject this to further critique. Others, no doubt aware of the fragile unity that exists within the movement, do not press the issue. Again this is symptomatic of the wider problems we face. A further problem stemmed from the lack of structure. Whilst agreements appeared to have been reached and decisions taken at Collective meetings, many were overturned in subgroups or, worst of all, in informal groups outside of the decision-making process. This led to the main debates, including the imagery & wording of the propaganda (see below), and indeed the actions themselves, being conducted by email, a useless medium for collective decision-making. Whilst there is no doubt that this was in part due to a lack of activists with time on their hands and the skills to do what was needed, resulting in a concentration of tasks and decisions on a very few people - and ‘leadership’ by default - this is not the whole story.
Another reason for the recent narrowing of the Collective could be a growing perception of Mayday (among other big “days out”) as failing to live up to its aspirations. Rather than acting as a hub to co-ordinate imaginative and inspirational alternatives to capitalism, using direct action; the actions selected to embark upon have ended up being dictated by the cops. It’s difficult to see what can be done here, other than not get into the situation in the first place! But this fails to answer our predicament. As we have seen over the last three years on Mayday, once contained, the primary focus shifts, becoming instead a running battle trying to outwit the cops. For some, a ruck with the cops ends up becoming a yardstick for success in itself. But it is an inadequate and unsustainable response, both tactically and in terms of our numerical strength. For others, Mayday is characterised by boredom, frustration and not being in control of events. Feelings that sum up and enforce much of our daily experience of life within capitalism. Not the kind of lasting memory of Mayday we set out months before to plan and facilitate, surely?
This brings us to the propaganda, such as it was. We feel that little attempt was made to explain the politics of the event or to inject any revolutionary perspective by way of leaflet or paper. The imagery focused on the ‘black bloc’ (never a significant part of the UK scene), with pictures of masked up young men in macho poses. There was none of the ambiguity of previous years, no sense of fun and playfulness. Of the prop that was produced by the Collective on Mayday (a map with targets across central London), despite the dusting over of situationist-derived language, we were encouraged to reproduce the kind of alienated political practice that would have Debord turning in his grave. Without a trace of irony the “hardcore” radical staring out from the stickers and map served only to reinforce the separation of political action into something that should only be carried out by the specialists.
Some comrades independently produced a leaflet aimed at explaining the roots of the event and the ongoing tradition of class solidarity. This leaflet was well received by passers by on the day, many of who were naturally curious. It is a shame that the Collective as a whole did not consider such a leaflet a necessary priority.
Yet despite all this, we still believe the Mayday actions to have been worthwhile, and a relative success, and despite our disagreements we acknowledge the commitment and courage of those involved. But where next for Mayday?
We believe it is not sustainable in its present form, although we remain committed to its original objectives, just as we remain committed to the long-term revolutionary objective of smashing capitalism for a world of peace and freedom. If Mayday is to continue it needs to be more than an ad hoc collection of individuals, brought together through informal networks and occasional email invites to meetings (and we are guilty of this failing as much as anyone else). It will need to be adopted as an objective by the wider movement with a clearer political basis and tactical focus. That means hard work – networking, discussing, honesty - and a breaking down of factional barriers to open up the process. We think it is possible both to maintain a libertarian and revolutionary base, whilst allowing for different perspectives. Difficult granted, but possible we think and moreover, absolutely necessary.
In looking forward it is essential that everyone concerned in the process next time does not ignore the need to clarify our objectives:
1. What we want to achieve?
2. How do we intend to achieve it?
3. How do these objectives get communicated? – assuming we are looking for wider endorsement and attendance at a future mayday event.
Before winding itself up, the London Mayday Collective held a post-Mayday debrief, that also looked forwards. There will be a Mayday meeting at the Anarchist Bookfair in October, followed by a mini-conference in November to discuss Mayday 2004. There now needs to be a wide debate on the content of Mayday, bearing in mind that it does not fall on a working day for the next three years. Perhaps the time has come to reclaim Mayday again?
By a number of comrades who have been involved in London Mayday over the years.