HOW DO ANARCHIST IDEAS GAIN INFLUENCE?
Media, Academia and Class Struggle
Anarchists, in Britain at least, have traditionally been hostile to using the mainstream media and academic press to spread our ideas. But are we missing out on the chance to reach a wider audience? Perhaps after the high profile given to anarchists in anti-capitalist actions against the G8 last year we should be grabbing those 15 minutes of fame while we have the chance. Or is our distrust of the media and academia well-founded? This article is presented for debate since not every AF member is in agreement with all of the views expressed here. To date, AF members have limited ourselves to writing letters to local newspapers, talking to programme makers and doing the odd radio interview, all in an individual capacity, but we have discussed whether to do more.
A different kind of media interest
From the "Face of Hate" tabloid headlines about Class War in the 1980's to the hysterical "Anarchist ‘gallows’ to disrupt G8" in the Sunday Times last May referring to their 'discovery' of an anarchist plot to hang ourselves off bridges, we are used to reading alarmist, ill-informed or blatantly fabricated articles in the daily newspapers, whether these are directed at specific organisations or at "anarchy" in general.
But since the Gleneagles G8 summit and in the few months preceding it, the AF has been inundated with a different kind of press request that is more open and seemingly more respectful of our viewpoint. First we were asked to participate in what became a BBC4 documentary "G8 - Can You Hear Us?", a story made up from following various groups at (and on their journey to) the summit. Then Channel 4 News contacted us to ask if we'd "got any events or actions planned" for the summit.
In recent months we've even been invited on to that scary BBC1 religious Sunday TV programme "The Heaven and Earth Show" to debate the Christian work ethic, and ITV youth series "It's My Life" asking us to argue 'wealth can't buy happiness' against Peter Stringfellow! Then BBC TV Newcastle emailed to find someone who had received "but did not pay" a fixed penalty notice, to form part of a debate about their use by local councils to punish graffiti and littering, and apparently to give it a civil liberties flavour. Even our views on football seem to be of interest, at least to one Guardian sports journalist, judging by a quote from one of our Resistance bulletins about FC United. We're just waiting for that call to ask us for our racing tips.
A related issue is a heightened interest in anarchism from the academic direction. As well as contact from the mainstream media, the AF has had numerous requests from students of media studies or critical theory who want to get our views about direct action and misrepresentation of anarchism in the media for their essays or projects. We've also had an interview request from a student newspaper for their "In Ideas" section (does that mean we're really cool?). All of these approaches offered an opportunity to overcome misconceptions. This is presumably in response to 'intellectual' articles written by journalists and academics in magazines like the Economist "For jihadist, read anarchist" and on various websites like Aljazeera's "Al-Qaida: The wrong answers", who think it's clever to liken anarchist theory and tactics to those of Islamic terrorists. Our Aims and Principles have also been quoted, and misrepresented, in an academic paper in the journal "Studies in Conflict and Terrorism" called "Anarchist direct actions - a challenge for law enforcement".
Should we be taking this heightened interest seriously and attempt to engage better either as an opportunity to promote anarchism or to defend our views when misrepresented? Should we be talking as often as possible to journalists and academics, or perhaps go even further and try and get on Big Brother? I will argue that there are good practical and theoretical reasons for shunning both the press and approaches by academics.
The Media Monolith
The problem with media made and presented by professionals, however sympathetic a particular writer or programme maker may seem, is that it’s not going to promote the necessity of destroying the State and capitalism, far from it. From Murdoch's TV and newspaper empire (Sky, Times, Sun etc.) and the BBC, to various smaller news outfits like the Guardian Media Group, together with a heavy reliance on global news agencies like Reuters and Associated Press, our mainstream media is very much a corporate monolith in the hands of a small number of powerful 'barons' who are interested in both money and power, the kind of power that claims to control the fate of governments (unless like Berlusconi's Italy you also run the government!).
Media's other reasons for being are a greater or lesser mixture of State control and 'public service' which effectively means either presenting us with blatant propaganda or force-feeding us with a diet of opinions on what makes a good citizen. These roles of the mainstream media are good for propping up the status quo, and very bad at taking seriously any attempt to destroy it, even if some of them come out against the government from time to time, or may themselves become victims of censorship (or even get bombed during a war). The media will always act to defend democracy however they define it, cannot go very far to expose its limitations and failings, and in fact creates a facade over what is really a ruthlessly anti-democratic underbelly.
Whilst the sacred cow of investigative journalism may claim to have occasionally helped changed 'public' views on Vietnam and various other nasty wars and atrocities, physical change did not come about without sustained struggle domestically and, in the case of the Vietnam war, by insubordination, desertion or mutiny of soldiers. Furthermore, investigative programmes, rather than confront the powers that be, more often aim to expose or engage in character assassination of groups or individuals not liked by the mainstream whether it's Fathers for Justice, members of the British National Party, 'radical' Imams, Michael Jackson, or animal rights groups engaged in economic sabotage against vivisectors.
Many more television hours are filled with programmes about civil servants catching benefit 'cheats' or the outing of dodgy workmen or petty criminals. It does not really matter whether we would support or oppose certain groups or individuals (or not care either way), the democratic approach will always be one of appeal to the legal process of the State, never to encourage self-activity. It's more than a bit ripe to hear them go on about defending free speech when the same media cannot countenance direct action by anarchists, anti-fascists or any working class person against those who seek to deny the freedom of others.
Plus we know that investigations of big business corruption, governments 'misleading the public', or military 'misdemeanours' rarely change anything just on the basis of exposure, because there are wealthy and powerful interests at play. The real nature of our ruling class is rarely revealed, or if it is, only years after an event and presented by the media as a shock surprise. A recently documented example of selective media is press indifference to overt British and US support for the bloodbath meted out in Indonesia by the Sukarno regime in the 1960s and the subsequent invasion of East Timor, that was vigorously campaigned against by activists at the time, but is now presented only as a hard-to-find footnote of unsavoury history rather than an atrocity that was perpetrated and covered up by politicians that are still in power today (see Mark Curtis' book "Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World"). Media reporting of conflicts in the Balkans is another good example. Today this carries on with the reporting of events in Iraq, which ever more quickly become historical news items rather than current affairs, and are in turn justified by a patriotic fervour continually fed to us by the press to create support for whatever military action is going on in the here and now.
Most seriously for activists, the mainstream media, if they bother to mention us at all, will deliberately misrepresent the revolutionary movement and try to identify and discredit the "extremist elements" - that's us! The risk of misrepresentation is extremely high, whether by misunderstanding or deliberate manipulation by editors and producers, or by a journalist with a political agenda (as was experienced recently by Noam Chomsky when he was smeared through a Guardian interview as the denier of a massacre during the Bosnian war, by means of creative editing). It can also be very difficult to come across well in a live situation especially if you are confronted with ‘hostile interviewer’ techniques. Never mind that journalists are being paid to help a media business and its shareholders sell papers or advertising space, and that they have an interest in furthering their media careers. They are really not likely to be sympathetic of our aims, so we should not be flattered by their apparent interest in our principles.
Consumption of TV and newspapers alienates us in such a way that the events we see and read about become detached from real life. The more extreme a group is, compared to the cultural norm that the broadcaster or newspaper editor is appealing to, the more it will come across like an act in a freak-show (although played to advantage by the Clown Army in “G8 – Can You Hear Us”). For example, producers of "The Heaven and Earth Show", mentioned above, made it clear to us that they wanted someone who had dropped out of the 'rat-race' because of their politics - a preconception if there ever was one and a clear message that the narrative of the show had been decided in advance. As soon as anarchists become the subject of debate rather than being seen as active participants in a struggle, we become an easy target for those who may wish to caricature us as naïve fools or violent thugs, rather than rational opponents of a oppressive and violent social system.
Fluffy vs. Spikey
Unfortunately, not everyone in the anti-capitalist movement agrees with this analysis. Fluffiness, a non-violent approach to protest, which has as one of its tactics the gain of favourable media coverage, became quite prevalent in anti-globalisation actions from London J18 onwards and especially since Seattle N30. These both took place in 1999 preceded by actions around the time of the Criminal Justice Act in the mid-1990s. Disagreements about the pros and cons of fluffy vs. spikey have caused divisions in the wider anti-capitalist movement. Although it's probably true to say that anarchism in Britain has remained more on the spikey side of things, many activists continue to be convinced that media-friendliness is the way to go, or at least a useful addition to our own propaganda.
But we know from experience of past struggles that States can be extremely violent against dissenting movements - think of Genoa G8 - never mind the reality of armed response and covert assassinations that governments have used and continue to use in many parts of the world. You don't have to be being violent yourself to get beaten up or killed by the State, a situation that would become more and more likely if mass uprisings or revolution started to look likely.
Once you believe that violence is an inevitable part of the class struggle, knowing that the worst violence is perpetrated by nation states and corporations, there is just no point trying to use the mainstream press to justify your position. The experience of Class War speaking on TV (BBC Newsnight if I remember rightly) after the 1990 Trafalgar Square anti-Poll Tax riot is instructive. After calling the rioters "working class heroes" the spokesperson was immediately victimised by bosses at his local council workplace (although happily defended by his workmates).
We should also be careful not to give away tactical info of any kind. Confusion amongst the ruling class of our strength and aims can be a great advantage for a small movement. Talking to the media before, on, or after actions is always risky in this respect bearing in mind that some journalists may have links to the cops, or could even be cops. Especially beforehand, it's important not to hand the media/police on a plate what we may or may not be doing, or even to let them know we are supporting or attending an action. Even by saying you are just speaking as a individual can still impart information about your group's approach to an event. It's perhaps better if they think none of us are involved and make it hard for them to plan their response!
Many anarchists including the AF have also argued against bringing any cameras or recording devices on demos even by do-it-yourself (DIY) media outfits, because of the high risk of them getting into police hands or confusing them with undercover police equipment. Bravado remarks like 'the Special Branch know about us already so why should we worry' are not well-founded. If that was the case, why would police have used a court order to view and then seize TV footage of last summer's anti-G8 actions from BBC Scotland (15 tapes) and Scottish Television (10 tapes) and obtained a warrant to take tapes from Sky?
Academia
Study of the history of anarchist thought and practice has been important for our movement and there are academics of anarchism who are good comrades. Furthermore, anarchism modules in university degrees seem to be more popular than ever. But does this mean we should be engaging more with the academic community to get anarchism talked about even more widely? Would it be useful to have our aims, strategies and tactics discussed in academic journals and specialist conferences, and perhaps infect the Zeitgeist with positive features of anarchism? The answer must be found in the audience of such journals. Not all academics who are interested in anarchism will be committed activists and working within our movement to make knowledge available to the masses. The academic publications themselves are unlikely to be freely available to the 'lay-person' who doesn't have access to online subscriptions to journals. Even when printed versions of academic journals are available, access is being made worse by restrictions of free entry to university libraries.
Moreover, many academic studies are intended to gain and disseminate understanding in order to control dissent. Just look at papers devoted to protest, especially of violent ones like riots. Some of these might be by those who claim to be well-meaning social scientists devoted to understanding the motivations of protesters, and may even paint protesters in a positive light. But these and many much less sympathetic academic studies feed directly into State policy, for example, informing crowd control strategies of the police who both read and contribute to such journals. This specialist knowledge is intended for an elite, does very little to contribute to the struggle against the system, and more often than not will act against our interests and security.
Lastly, many anarchist writers and translators, often self-taught, have contributed to our extensive body of knowledge that is available in libraries and freely available on the internet. Others have created more accessible and cheaper versions of longer texts, or contribute their knowledge to open meetings. This all helps to take anarchism out of the academies so we have less need for them than we might have otherwise.
Media by us, for us.
Anarchism is about self-activity and so, when we do use media, it should be our own. DIY media is part of a process of active participation in struggles. It involves people acting not as subjects but as those making change, learning to demystify the process of presenting news and ideas, and very importantly choosing if and when it is useful to speak. For sure, the internet has transformed communication in our movement, but again it's about self-presentation. We could spend all day contributing to high-profile online forums like those on the BBC News website and achieve very little, when many of the same ideas can be found on our own websites or other publications.
So anarchist communist organisation is about being involved with and learning through class struggle. Revolutionary commitment isn't going to be got across through media spectacle, but by meaningful human interactions. To try to get 15 minutes of fame (or infamy) in our celebrity-worshipping culture - perhaps 15 or more years with the help of a massive marketing machine if you are rich and lucky - involves impressing either an elite, or least a sizable number of passive consumers. Even the new approach of 'viral marketing' that involves active participation in social networks is only interested in targeting an elite group of persuaders to sell a product or idea on its 'coolness'. These approaches are bound to fail to achieve the spread of revolutionary ideas. Furthermore, complex ideas are best debated when they have real meaning, not in the isolation of an academic discipline. The ideas of Bakunin for example, had most meaning in the late 1800s when the possibility of immediate social revolution was real. Today they serve as a historical lesson of what happens when other ideas like the Workers' State are forced on the masses, and can now be used to warn against trusting the authoritarian left in contemporary struggles.
It's also a matter of safety. A personal experience in a local anti-poll tax group is relevant to this. At being denounced as a violent anarchist after the Trafalgar Square demonstration by the local Militant (now Socialist Party) hack, whose party had publicly condemned the riot and whose leaders had promised to "name names" to the police, other non-aligned members of our local anti-poll group defended me knowing that I was a solid member of our group involved in all levels of campaigning. Never mind the fact that anarchists had, in reality, nothing to do with ‘organising’ a riot as was being portrayed in the media (a view that was unhelpfully backed up by Class War's appearance on TV in my opinion). The myth of an anarchist-organised riot was dismantled by people's first hand participation in the demonstration, and such was the strength of solidarity in local groups that a local defence fund organisation formed in my town in addition to the national one. This supported and raised money for all those facing court cases after the riot, with the principle that there was to be no judgment as to what they had been arrested for. This degree of support came out of direct experience of a mass-participation riot in the context of a sustained community campaign, something that would never have come out of a press appeal. It’s also worth stressing how far away this is from the tactics used by terrorists, who go out of their way to advertise themselves using the mainstream press in order to heighten the fear they want to create.
"The revolution will not be televised"
Anarchist communists do not wish to be seen as a group of experts in insurrectionary principles. An organisation of less than 100 members is not going to change the world on its own and we have no pretensions of leading a revolution, unlike the authoritarian left. Even if we succeeded in getting across so well on TV that 1000 potential new members contacted us the next day just because they liked our ideas, if they had no experience of revolt in their workplaces or communities, an organisation like ours would surely collapse! For the same reasons we don't spend every week on a stall in town, trying to flog our papers or recruit new members. Anarchism will only gain influence if it shows itself to be effective through application of theory in practice (praxis) by people in the course of struggle. If through this process a person finds they want to know more about anarchism or join the AF we would consider that a bonus.
Mainstream media is either about caricaturing us to a passive audience, or explaining us to an elite, and we should not help them. Why would we even want to be considered respectable in their eyes? It's all to the better if they get it wrong or have to make it up so we can laugh at them rather than get annoyed about being misrepresented! To demystify and ridicule the mainstream media is to weaken it, towards the day when it will be swept away with the rest of the State and capitalism. At that time the grip of the State on the media will tighten, as it does during a war. Anarchists should therefore continue to prioritise production of our own media, reflecting on real experience in workplace and community struggles, rather than waste our efforts with broadcast and press. Further to this, we should preferably rely as little as possible on big events to spread our ideas, as these are here one day and gone the next (like Make Poverty History whose media campaign was ended at the end of 2005). And rather than getting too bogged down with academia we would very much encourage students who are interested in anarchism to join or form anarchist groups, to publish their own papers, and get involved with struggles where people can work together as equals. Our ideas mean nothing if we are not involved with real people in real-life situations.
For a good set of online anarchist and independent news sources, check our website News section: http://www.libcom.org/hosted/af/news.html
If you don’t have access to the internet, you can also write to us for printed copies of all of our publications including our monthly news and views bulletin, Resistance.