Synopsis of Prague Debate --- 29/9/2000

The meeting opened with an introductory examination of the motives and aims behind the anti-capitalist demos from an anarchist perspective. Are they really anti-capitalist or just anti IMF and Globalisation? Would removing the IMF solve anything? The IMF didn’t exist in the 1920’s, was our global economic situation any better then? Is even Anti-Globalisation itself an anarchist position? Surely we should just be anti-capitalist, period, whether its global or local, and not concern ourselves with judging between the varieties of capitalism and its attendant institutions. There was a danger of losing the ball here perhaps.

A popular response to this was that those of us that supported the demos did not do so out of any of the above motivations or aims. The Anti-Globalisation project was seen as a starting position to campaign from and a way of bringing in more people. Globalisation demonstrates capitalism at its worst and may serve as the object of a global resistance movement. The demos were seen as a positive rallying cry and a sign of hope, on which a more revolutionary movement could be built. They were inspirational for the anti-capitalist movement and political dissenters in general. They had greater significance than the aims of the organisers, whatever they were. Anarchists should engage in protests as they develop and turn them to their own advantage, not remain in the purist ghetto afraid of recuperation. Some thought the aims/ motivation question to be irrelevant.

The examination was then broadened, to whether anti-capitalism on its own is enough. As anarchists we want not only economic but social, ethical and cultural change as well. An purely anti-capitalist movement may be too narrow and in some ways counter revolutionary.

More seriously it allows the movement to become dominated by a Marxist perspective, which attracts Stalinists, who are still a serious threat to any kind of free socialism. This worry seemed to be universally shared by those at the meeting, certainly there were no counter arguments to it. Though it was not regarded as a reason for non-involvement. Perhaps it called for a shift in propaganda however.

At the end of the introduction concern was expressed over the plight of those arrested in Prague following S26. More information was said to be available.

At this point the debate was shifted from one on theory and political objectives to an analysis of tactics and political methodology. Both the actual events in Prague and previous demos were subjected to a strong critique led from an anarcho-primitivist’s perspective.

Reservations about the apparently over violent tactics were raised. Some affirmed their personal belief in pacifism, but did not condemn others. Objections were not primarily on pacifist grounds however but mainly on tactical ones. Given the rise of fascism in the Czech Republic and its power over the Police and public opinion, and the fact ‘left wing’ violence would be interpreted as a foreign import. Not everyone agreed with this but the use of fire bombs was universally questioned. Some felt this was unjustified at anytime.

The pattern of demos came under particular attack in the main critique. The demonstrators were characterised as being a small group of purposeless agitators fighting ritual battles with the cops, with a larger group of spectator-protestor enjoying the riot entertainment. The whole thing being a rigid, unimaginative response, especially when compared with the gradually evolving counter measures from the authorities. This was a political dead end it was claimed.

Organisers were particular targeted for criticism, and accused of degenerating into vanguardism, with the marshalling of demonstrators (both subtly and overtly) and a hierarchical organisation observed to be emerging amongst them, with an elite class of professional activists (Chiapaniks) dominating the scene.

Few of those present totally went along with this, no doubt deliberately provocative, critique, but many were concerned that the secrecy required by long term militant campaigning lent itself to inner circle decision making and the emergence of hierarchies. The unimaginative nature of many of the recent protests was also a concern, as was the over ideological nature of some of the protestors motivations.

Some support was given to the demos against this critique arguing that they had been highly successful in most of their disruptive and propagandist aims. And repeating their value as inspirational events. The liberating power of their spontaneous eruptions was even acknowledged by the most strident critics.

The success of Prague was questioned by those who claimed most of the economic decision making had already been made before the meeting and that its early closure had little effect. Against this pessimism the enormous propaganda value of the escalating demos was accentuated.

One worry claim made by critical opinion was that this constant run of demos was draining resources for other ‘more effective’ forms of activism and campaigning. With too many people spending all available time in the intervening months planning the next demo.

When pressed for an alternative, critics promoted front line, direct action against the implementation of IMF decisions rather than mass ‘symbolic protests’ at rubber stamp events. A myriad of small local campaigns against specific issues were also called for. Though these should be linked as part of an over all critique rather than becoming ‘alienated, bourgeois single issue politics’. The latter were denounced as psychologically motivated projections of personal frustration.

Another opinion was that syndics and militant unions should play a greater role in protest. But this was not widely accepted, with unions denounced as irretrievably flawed.

At this point the debate moved to one on anarchist organisation in general. The critical opinion promoted the rejection of ideological mass movements (and mass society in general) in favour of small bands of activists motivated only by personal dissatisfaction (who in post revolutionary times would split into diverse encapsulated communities). Against this a more traditional anarchist communist vision of a politically conscious, co-ordinated movement, with a common agenda, was posited (one that would support a post revolutionary mass society). Both accused the other of adopting a policy that was inevitably counter revolutionary and led to centralisation, representation and hierarchy.

Without a conscious revolutionary agenda small groups would become reactionary and degenerate into rival authoritarian sects, it was claimed. While familiar objections were made against civil society and mass movements.

Some consensus was reached on a compromise of a disparate ‘movement of movements’ and a pluralistic ‘society of societies’, in which unity was achieved in diversity under a common set of principles. Though this was not universally accepted.

The debate then wandered onto other issues and the meeting was adjourned for the pub.