In light of the recent student
demonstrations, particularly the events at Milbank tower during the
first protest, the question of “direct action” tactics has once again
been raised.
In light of the recent student
demonstrations, particularly the events at Milbank tower during the
first protest, the question of “direct action” tactics has once again
been raised. With further student demonstrations planned this year, and
the cuts truly beginning to bite, it is important that we deal with
questions related to this idea, and take a position as Marxists in the youth movement.
The events at Milbank tower may just be one example of direct action.
However, it is an important one to consider. There have been a variety
of responses from the left and it is a model that may be returned to in
frustration with the Tory-led coalition government and the capitalist
class as a whole.
Fundamentally we must identify the attacks on Millbank as being a
justified initial outburst of anger from students against the
Government. The action itself, flowing from the lack of leadership and
militancy from the NUS leadership, has been used as a propaganda tool by
the media. Despite this, many workers and students were inspired by the
magnificent size and militancy of the demonstration, and have some
sympathy for the action at Millbank as a symbolic attack on Tory HQ.
Unsurprisingly, the bourgeoisie managed to ignore the fact that 50,000
students had marched in the biggest demonstrations since the Iraq war.
Instead front pages on the 11th of November read “CARNAGE”
and displayed pictures of protestors smashing windows and occupying the
roof of the Tory HQ. This is what sells papers. It is always to be
expected that the media will report negatively on protests against the
austerity measures: something to deter the attention away from the fact
that students are to experience a massive hike in tuition fees, the
result of which will be polarisation in the education system as only the
rich are going to be able to afford the fees.
Mass action
Whilst we recognise that direct action has limitations and that the mass action
needed to defeat the government can only be taken by a working class
united behind a socialist programme; it is important to understand why
these events took place. People are angry that fundamental
services such as – in this case – their education, are being threatened
because they are having to pay for a banking (and capitalist) crisis which they didn’t
cause. It also must be noted that the students did receive support from workers with many congratulating them on standing up to the Tories
and their regime of austerity cuts.They recognise that the real violence
is being carried out by the coalition.
Essentially, in terms of Millbank, we must recognise that whilst we
recognise the limitations of direct action, we stand 100% behind the
students’ who are expressing their anger and frustration. On university
campuses Marxists have been – and must continue to fight against – the possible
expulsions of students present at Millbank. Perhaps most importantly, we
must remember what the bosses press appeared to forget: this demonstration was
the first of several which represents the reawakening of British
students and their willingness to fight en masse and participate in the
class struggle against the cuts of this Tory-led government.
As previously mentioned, the primary problem with the events at
Millbank last year and indeed all “direct action,” is that it lacks a socialist
perspective and strategy – it does not take account of the
movement of the working class. Essentially, the aim of Marxists is for a
socialist transformation of society. This revolutionary overthrow of
capitalism can only be carried out under the direction and power of the working class, because of its
special role in production.
Marxism is not an academic study; it is exactly the opposite: it is a
call to action. The difference between the action that we, as Marxists,
call for and the “direct action” of the anarchists is that we
understand that such action must have a clear point to it. Thought out
and democratic action must be taken in order to forward the struggle
against capitalism. Why is it necessary to consider such action so
carefully? Because of whom we are fighting against. The capitalist class
will not give up its position in society easily. In order to transform
society the working class, the class that the bourgeoisie rely upon to
make their money, must be ready to fight in an organised way so as to
defeat such an enemy.
“Self organisation”
In attempting to do this we, unlike the anarchists, also recognise
the distinct need for leadership in our “direct action”. As quoted form
Phil Mitchinson’s Marxist and Direct Action,
one anarchist group, Reclaim the Streets, say: “Reclaim the streets is
non-hierarchical, spontaneous and self organised. We have no leaders, no
committee, no board of directors, no spokes people. There is no
centralised unit for decision making, strategic planning and production
of ideology. There is no membership and no formalised commitment. There
is no master plan and no pre-defined agenda.” It is very hard to
understand why anyone would see this lack of organisation as a cause of
celebration. Firstly, how can a group exist if there is no membership?
Secondly, what sort of bourgeoisie are they imagining will be overthrown
by a sporadic group of people who are “spontaneous” and have no formal
“decision making” or “strategic planning”? It also seems fair to point
out that, rather ironically, a group with no leadership (or even
membership) is able to create such statements defining what sort of a
group it is. Who was given the authority to do so?
Fundamentally the attitudes and actions of the anarchists stem from
their belief that the state (the police and army who help to defend the
rich) must be destroyed with no replacement. Marxists too believe that
the state of the bourgeoisie must be abolished but we see the
transformation differently; in the first instance of socialist
revolution there will be the creation of a democratic workers’ state (as
Lenin spoke of in State and Revolution)
which will be different to the capitalist state in that it will be
created and run for the good of the many rather than the few. The
purpose of such a state apparatus would be to defend workers against
sabotage and violence from the capitalist class. We believe that as time
moves on and the new socialist society develops and the bourgeoisie
weakens the “state” of the proletariat will no longer be necessary and
it will therefore wither away.
The anarchists’ lack of understanding of the state leads to both
their utopian belief that it can simply be destroyed over night and
their actions to fight for their cause in the present time. As Phil
Mitchinson wrote in Marxism and Direct Action, “This
opposition to the state and authority leads to a rejection of
participation in any form of parliamentary activity, belonging to a
political party or fighting for any reforms, that is political change
through the state. This opposition to the state is also what leads to
anarchists’ emphasis on direct action. Obviously, what with their
opposition to other forms of activity they are left with little else
they can do, but these actions also stem from a belief that they are
fighting against the state through these actions. In reality, poorly
organised direct action is a gift to the state, it gives the police an
excuse to be more violent towards protestors, and in any case, it’s not
as though the bourgeoisie can’t afford to replace a few broken windows.
Whilst we understand the anger that many people are feeling in
reaction to the cuts and capitalist crisis, we also understand that what
is required of us as socialists is a clear strategy for the masses to
overthrow the bourgeois “state.” Now is the time to arm the working
class with the theory of Marxism and thus, in combination with well
thought out and well led action, the ability to carry out a socialist
transformation of society.
