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?

Contact email: info@afed.org.uk