Stop StopG20! Stop the Stagemanagement of Dissent

In order to prevent this post being an exercise in nit-picking, we have decided to post an article by Monsieur Dupont. We consider that this article succinctly delineates the kind of politics dominant in the organisation of “StopG20” activities.

That article, which discusses the politics of a counter-summit protest in Prague, can be viewed here.

We were prompted to post this article, as well as some ‘nit-picking’ points, by the experience of Wednesday night’s Stopg20 spokescouncil, as well as by the numerous suggestions from people that Arterial Bloc and/or A Space Outside represent elements within stopG20 counter-posed to those about which we have been whinging. The Dupont article is our lazy way of giving some context to our criticism, a way of enframing our picking of nits.

[the media affinity group]
The most dominant contributors to the (un)lively discussion at the StopG20 spokescouncil were Marcus and Phoenix – representatives of the Stopg20 ‘media collective’. Handling the media on behalf of the Stopg20 group – whilst recognising that that organisation is, for all intents and purposes, nothing – they are the ones who seem to be doing much of the talking to the media, directly and by the editing and transmitting the media statements of other affinity groups. These people, after outlining their role, reassured everyone that in each of their engagements with the media they deflected comments about potential protestor violence by making cunning remarks to imply that “police cause the violence”. This formed part of an intent to “refocus media attention” onto (what they consider to be) the “real issues with the G20”. These real issues are ‘basic things’ which (they asserted) everyone would agree on. This lowest common denominator position is one that is made possible by the effacement of all criticism of G20 that is contradictory or otherwise incompatible to that of the left-liberal-green position. This effacement means that the left-liberal-green position is made hegemonic, where differing positions are simply the over-zealous extension or incomplete approximation of that position.

Our non-representatives thus claimed that they were, in fact, effectively representing us. After all, if they were really only speaking as themselves, why would they have to reassure us that we would agree?

In short, this media affinity group have constituted themselves as a “media collective”, acting as a centralised point for all media contact, from which they make statements which are always attributed to StopG20 spokespeople. Disingenuous statements about not acting as StopG20 spokespeople appear as a thin cover for the most conventional activist practices regarding the media. But, since no-one else seemed to have a problem with this, what is the function of this rhetoric beyond attempting to pre-empt criticism?

[the police liaisons]
Then there was the most astonishing announcement of the spokescouncil. The ‘Police Liaisons’ (though more than one group seemed to have met with the police) informed the group that the police will try a new tactic – police officers will be in the crowd, wearing yellow vests. This was not treated as a problem, and the idea of attempting to prevent this was not raised. After further revelations on the activities of the police liaison group it became clear that they were working with the police in efforts to ensure that the event was totally in control of organisers and the police. Their efforts are directed at ensuring the stopG20 events are perfectly managed - to be as alienating as possible and devoid of any possible confrontation or any activity other than the quite contemplation of commodities.

[‘Safe community space”]
Perhaps making the job of the police liaisons irrelevant are the efforts to ensure there is to be what is now apparently referred to as a ‘safe community space’. The primary rally will end at the police barricades where an event will take place at which participants are to be asked to respect the desire of organisers that this be a ‘safe community space’, because ‘the community’ will be there, some of whom are from ‘multicultural groups’, and, in case this isn’t enough, because ‘children’, ‘injured people’ and ‘the elderly’ will be there. Contradicting the media collective’s smug implications that police initiate all violence, participants who wish to engage in any confrontation are asked to do so elsewhere, outside of the area to which the rally is to be directed and in such a way that such confrontation is not to be connected to this area or those within it. Who will listen to bands and perform street theatre at the g20 from behind the police barricades.

We imagine anyone being rude to police will be told to stop because this is the ‘safe space’ and such rudeness might endangering it, as police wander through the reclaimed streets of this temporary autonomous zone.

What seems clear is that those ensuring that there will be a ‘safe community space’ are attempting to ensure that, if something other than obedience towards organisers were to occur, it will be immediately crushed by the participants themselves, through moral blackmail or whatever means is necessary. This is all necessary so that the ‘community’ attending can watch those bands, listen to those speakers, and browse the items at the ‘Really Really Free Market’, so that they can experience “protest culture”.

This is unlikely to be necessary, given an apparent absence of any groundswell in favour of a more confrontational politics – except perhaps for a bit of martyrdom. As usual, the concept of ‘community’ (people said that this event would be the primary ‘community outreach project’ of the stopg20) is used manipulatively as an imaginary category demanding passivity. A couple of people made very short interventions to suggest that the safety of compliance might be illusory but also that the safety conceivable as an assertion of collective power might not be possible at this point.

(Speakers were listed: unfortunately ‘our African speaker’ has pulled out at the last minute, but efforts are being undertaken to replace them.)

[affinity(support) groups]
Somewhat apart from the absolutely managed activities of the G20 protest are the efforts of the ‘autonomously organised’ affinity groups. Roughly these groups can be divided into a gaggle of support groups, who admit that they won’t be doing anything except asking people to ‘use’ them for their own purposes so that they don’t feel like they are wasting their time, and a number of groups dedicated to ensuring that confrontational attitudes with the police are quashed immediately. (For example, Zombie Bloc are willing to block roads if people want, by shuffling on to them, living dead style, while Carnival Beyond Capitalism people are more likely to define a large space in which people can be actively policed by both the organisers and by actual police wandering around the Carnival just as they would after capitalism. Or beyond it.) In many ways both of these activities seems to revolve around the imagined existence of a group that will be undertaking a direct assault against the G20 summit. The existence of which, so far as we can tell, only exists in the fantasy (either nostalgic or paranoid) of current participants. These may have been paying too much attention to the media hype about another S11, about ten thousand people coming, etcetera, which is currently being ratified by protest (non-)spokespeople who wish to use this simulation of impending action to launch their message into the media even as the authorities wish to use this event to try out new methods of policing. Neither side wishes to articulate the truth, which is that neither side actually expects many people to show up or seriously believes that those who do will be undertaking any large-scale collective confrontation with the forces of order. (Significant portions of those ‘organising’ are constituting themselves as forces of order, though in the case of one affinity group this will at least be only in their heads as they announced they would be meditating to ‘send’ niceness into the G20, the protest and the city as a whole.)

[A Space Outside and Arterial Bloc]
Perhaps contradicting these general tendencies is the existence of the Arterial Bloc and of A Space Outside. In their ‘call-out’ the Arterial Bloc make the assertion that they are not interested in “being martyrs” - something entirely refreashing in this organisation of flagellation. However, from the look of stopG20 efforts at present, that is exactly what they will be engaging in. The only people that stand alongside them – in relative political terms – are the A Space Outside people who are likely to be busy trying to get attention at harmless media stunts inside or outside ‘bad’ corporations, or else doing media stunts aimed at drumming up fear for the impending climate change apocalypse. Most likely the Arterial Bloc, with their traditional counter-summit desire to confront the G20 conference, will end up either wasting their time at a lame festival, getting fed to the cops by the non-violent types, or smashing themselves against police barriers. Thus, given the current balance of forces inside and outside the protest, the most likely outcome of their activity is indeed martyrdom. Or boredom.

Despite all this there is still room for humour. One affinity group, in an act of solidarity with third world peoples, will camp out in cardboard boxes and eat rice whilst holding signs asking for the admittance of environment ministers and political leaders of third world nations to the G20. They will be doing this whilst attempts are made to differentiate StopG20 from Make Poverty History…