💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-the-uk-student-movement.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:51:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The UK Student Movement Author: CrimethInc. Date: January 27, 2011 Language: en Topics: student movement, UK, austerity, Read All About It Source: Retrieved on 9th November 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2011/01/27/the-uk-student-movement
November and December 2010 saw an unprecedented wave of student protest
in the UK, touched off by an attack on the right-wing Tory party
headquarters during a demonstration against tuition increases. With the
assistance of members of the Last Hours collective, we’ve completed a
belated overview of the causes and highlights of the UK student
movement.
The events in the UK are significant in that they come on the heels of
labor unrest in Spain and France, and coincided with fierce student
protests in Italy as well. To the south, the government of Tunisia has
just been toppled, sending shockwaves to Egypt. Broadly speaking, these
are all reactions to the effects of the ongoing financial crisis that
came into public consciousness in 2008; we will probably see more of
these as disaffected youth take stock of the world they will be
inheriting.
Sooner or later, this outrage is bound to erupt in the US as well. Last
year’s student movement is surely only a preview, though we can’t tell
what form it will take next. What we can do is study upheavals elsewhere
in the world, reflect on how we can best contribute to oppositional
momentum, and keep up our experiments in catalyzing resistance.
On November 10, 2010, 52,000 people participated in a protest in London
organized by the National Union of Students. As the main demonstration
moved by Millbank Tower, a splinter group of hundreds, headed by no more
than 30 black bloc anarchists, broke into the Tory Headquarters there.
Carrying red and black flags with their faces concealed, the small group
of anarchists formed a bloc at a doorway to Millbank tower within
eyesight of the main demonstration. The intention was clear but at first
the crowd seemed reluctant to join them and passed on by. Then more
people started to join the back of the bloc. This gave others confidence
and the group soon grew to several hundred, at which point the front of
the bloc entered the building. Then another entrance was taken as many
more people left the proposed rout and the crowed filled the courtyard.
Protesters broke windows, flooded hallways, and scrawled anti-government
graffiti across any available surface. The small number of police at the
scene moved in to prevent anyone else from entering or exiting the
building. An estimated 200 people were trapped inside Millbank tower as
thousands waited outside.
Soon those inside the building attempted to break out by throwing
furniture through the large lobby windows, while others smashed CCTV
cameras. Some ran further into the building, even reaching the roof.
People outside fought police with sticks and fists, trying to open a
passage in and out of the building.
The corporate media immediately attempted to blame the invasion on a
small group of troublemakers, focusing on an incident in which a fire
extinguisher was dropped from the rooftop. However, these claims held
little legitimacy juxtaposed against images of thousands of protesters
gathered outside the building. Sky News reported a fringe group were
taking part in violent protest, but their feed had to be suddenly cut
when students and members of the public berated the reporter live on
air, one shouting “the insurrection has begun!”
Others who had proceeded to the end of the march appeared to become
bored of the National Student Union speeches and returned to Millbank
tower, swelling the numbers there already. Students who had been dancing
to Rage Against The Machine earlier in the day were now fighting side by
side with others dressed in traditional black bloc attire.
This was one of the most militant protests the UK had seen in recent
years. It concluded with approximately 50 arrests. In an attempt to play
down student involvement, corporate media ran “exposés” on long-running
anarchist institutions such as the Anarchist Federation and Class War.
While it might be true that individual anarchists where among the first
into the building and some even made it to the roof, not one of the few
organized anarchist groups in the UK were out in any great numbers. The
images of suspects circulated by the police and media didn’t show the
faces of shady bomb-throwers but those of the countries’ youth.
These events ignited a wave of protests, occupations, and action across
the UK involving more than 100,000 students over the months of November
and December.
Timeline
This is a summary of some of the more notable moments leading up to and
during the months of November and December 2010. Many other actions,
protests, and occupations occurred across the United Kingdom during this
time, and each one was integral to maintaining momentum. A more detailed
list is available here.
May 2010 – General Election results in a hung parliament, the first in
the UK since 1974. Liberal Democrats form a coalition government with
the center-right Tory (Conservative) Party.
October 12, 2010 – The controversial Browne Review is published, an
independent report on education funding. The government paper recommends
the removal of caps on the upper limit to university fees.
October 20, 2010 – The coalition government announces the largest
spending cuts since the second World War, including huge cuts to public
services.
November 10, 2010 – An estimated 52,000 people attend a National Union
of Students demonstration against raising tuition fees and scrapping EMA
(Educational Maintenance Allowance). Hundreds of students follow a small
group of anarchists into Millbank Tower, the Tory Government
headquarters. Windows are smashed and the building is shut down for
several hours.
November 15, 2010 — A wave of university occupations and sit-ins begins,
starting with Sussex University in Brighton. Over the next few weeks at
least 25 universities and colleges are occupied across the UK, some of
them multiple times.
November 24, 2010 — A national day of action is called for by the
National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts. Students use social networking
websites to organise in cities and towns across the UK. In London a
police riot van is destroyed when cops try to kettle the majority of the
protest. Small groups of students run through central London starting
fires and breaking windows. Italy sees similar protests, with an
occupation of the Coliseum in Rome.
November 28, 2010 — A council meeting in Lewisham, South London is
attended by several hundred protesters; 16 police officers are injured
when scuffles break out.
November 30, 2010 — In London, 139 people are arrested for “breach of
the peace” during a second national day of action. The word “Revolution”
is sprayed across Nelson’s Column. Protests are held in 14 other cities
across the UK; these are fast-paced, as students adopt new tactics to
avoid kettling.
December 9, 2010 — The government votes on the raise in tuition fees
while a national protest is attended by thousands. In London, 2800
police are deployed to protect Parliament. Protesters break into
splinter groups to avoid being kettled. Thousands make it to Parliament
and fight police; 43 protesters are injured. One protester is
hospitalized, requiring surgery to treat “bleeding to the brain.”
Several breakaway groups head into the city shopping district where
windows are smashed and a car occupied by Prince Charles and the Duchess
of Cornwall is attacked. The windows of the Treasury are smashed. The
government votes in favor of the rise.
As with any mass movement, it’s impossible to identify every brush
stroke that contributes to the bigger picture without making assumptions
about individual motivations or simplifying the complexity of human
behavior within a struggle. It would be improper to proclaim that a
single series of events or conditions led to this outburst of protest,
but we should identify factors that can aid our future manifestations of
resistance. In particular, we can look at how momentum is created,
maintained, and finally lost.
One feature of the protests was the wide range of social classes on the
street. The United Kingdom has a rich history of class-based struggle,
from the Diggers’ land occupations of the 1600s to the Miners’ Strikes
of the 1980s. Many considered the latter the beginning of the end for
organized working-class struggle in the UK when the previous Tory
government, lead by Margaret Thatcher, brutally dismantled the trade
union movement and paved the way for modern free-market capitalism. Up
until 2010, celebratory proletarian culture had been notably absent from
the wider public for the preceding 20 years. Consequently, the visible
anarchist presence of recent years had lost some of its historic
emphasis on class, instead playing a secondary presence in larger
campaigns such as anti-war and anti-fascist movements. Many younger
anarchists had become engaged through single-issue activism and later
adopted an anti-authoritarian perspective.
Over a few weeks at the end of 2010, however, a new form of class
struggle appeared. It manifested itself less in the conventional
workplace struggles associated with unions and the traditional Left and
more as an angry reaction against the alienation experienced by those
outside the ruling class under 21^(st) century capitalism. Debt, fewer
education opportunities, fewer job opportunities, a stagnant political
system, police violence, and general social ennui are all contributing
factors.
After the protest on December 9, a video appeared in which masked
individuals proclaimed “We’re from the slums of London, how do they
expect us to pay £9,000 for uni fees?” “What’s stopping us from doing
drug deals on the streets anymore? Nothing!” This video contrasted
starkly with corporate media interviews with white middle-class
teenagers condemning protester use of violence. This gives a good
insight into the tension on the street, but also the growing class
divisions within the UK and the tools used by state apparatus to
delegitimize protests.
We surmise that struggles in which the participants aim to address their
own conditions directly offer greater likelihood of sustained resistance
and continued momentum than campaigns based on moral objection, which
are easier for the state to neutralize. This is a common line of thought
among many anarchists, but it’s worth reiterating as we choose how to
focus our own energies.
There are many signs that, in the UK, modern anarchist culture has put
down roots within current youth culture; among young people, it may be
on the way to becoming the prevailing stance outside of the conventional
conservative-liberal spectrum. Anarchist flags, class war placards, and
banners with anarchist symbols peppered the protests and occupations in
towns that previously had no visible anarchist presence at all.
Anarchism remerged in the UK as a cultural mainstay in 1980s, then
gained momentum during the 1990s with the rise of the anti-roads
movement. That movement largely transformed into the anti-globalization
movement, an often celebrated phase in anarchist history worldwide.
There have been peaks and troughs since then, but campaigns and projects
such as Smash EDO (see Rolling Thunder #7), the Camp for Climate Action,
Earth First!, and a network of anarchist-run social centers have all
contributed to an ongoing visible anarchist presence. In the last few
years, a string of new book fairs and small press events has sprung up
across the country, most with varying degrees of anarchist involvement.
Since 2000 there has also been two summit protests against the G8 and
G20, both a successful insofar as they created effective
anti-authoritarian infrastructure and mobilized large numbers of people.
However, many recent protest campaigns had been largely organized and
attended by “full-time” activists and dedicated anarchists, and most
anarchist actions had been an appendices to campaigns that were not
explicitly anti-statist or anti-authoritarian in nature. Consequently,
an activist subculture has emerged. Though this subculture plays an
important roll in fostering radical activity, creating infrastructure
and providing protest experiences, in many ways it has been separated
from broader forms of class struggle. Meanwhile, creating a movement
based on political affinity rather than longstanding community also
provides opportunities for police infiltration.
The student protests represent a re-emergence of a popular movement
based largely in class issues, the likes of which have not been seen
since the anti-poll tax movement that peaked at the beginning of the
1990s (see Rolling Thunder #6).
It would be disingenuous to suggest that anarchists represent more than
a fraction of those involved in these protests and occupations. Yet it’s
important to note that the actions of even small groups of anarchists
such as the initial invasion of Millbank Tower can create huge waves of
momentum and spark whole movements. Even in small numbers, well-planned
or even spontaneous actions can catalyze momentum we couldn’t otherwise
create ourselves. Existing anarchist groups and networks have provided
important infrastructure in the form of legal advice, communications,
and independent media; they’ve also shared street knowledge such as how
to remain anonymous and how to handle police violence. In one case, the
police targeted FITwatch, a group set up by anarchists to encourage
anti-surveillance tactics at protests, prompting their web host to close
down their blog for “attempting to pervert the course of justice.” The
group had simply distributed information on avoiding arrest after the
invasion of Millbank Tower; the suggestions included tips on getting rid
of the clothes you were wearing, seeking legal counsel, and so on. The
actions of the police backfired as the information was quickly spread
via social networks; the liberal press eventually picked up the story,
spreading the information far wider than FITwatch could have ever
managed.
A revolutionary movement may not be explicitly anarchist but nonetheless
embody many of the values expressed through anarchist theory such as
mutual aid, autonomy, solidarity, and distrust of authority. From the
protests in towns with smaller populations to the largest in London, the
rejection of traditional power structures was a running theme. The
leadership of National Union of Students (NUS) was increasingly
marginalized. To some extent, this was their own doing: for example, it
didn’t help that Union President Aaron Porter condemned actions taken in
the NUS’ own protest. This may have helped foster a distrust of
leadership; when attempts where made to organize speeches from
opposition politicians and the usual “movement leaders,” many moved off
before the speeches even began.
Within the school and university occupations, the occupiers organised
non-hierarchically, examining their own processes, structures, and
effectiveness. One individual statement from the Goldsmith Occupation
even expressed a sentiment common in modern insurrectionary texts,
criticizing the “connivance of pseudo-radical academics, anxious union
reps, obnoxious sub-Trotskyists and pedantic anarchist hangers on.” The
text goes on to describe the frustrations of dealing with “a more
academic faction of occupiers” and calls for action similar to that of
the “Human Strike” discussed in the text “Preoccupied” produced after
the New School occupation in New York City.
On the other hand, despite being the most explicitly horizontally
organized element of the struggle, the occupations themselves created
points of authority for the movement. The time, resources, and public
attention granted to students involved in the occupations offered them a
louder public voice than some of those on the street.
In addition to the occupations and protests, thousands of schoolchildren
walked out of lessons or locked themselves in classrooms as an act of
rebellion or mischief. The spontaneous and self-organized nature of
these protests no doubt greatly contributed to maintaining momentum.
Instead of carrying mass-produced “official” placards, most people made
their own with varying degrees of comedy or political poignancy. Instead
of being told where to go and at what speed, people chose to run and
splinter from the proposed routes when it suited them. Sometimes this
led to protests taking seemingly illogical paths, such as marching from
one side of a city center, turning round, marching back, and then
repeating the same pattern; but this atmosphere of autonomy and
spontaneity gave the protests an energetic air and communal spirit. No
one knew where we where going, but we were all going there together.
When the front of the march took a bad turn, the middle would branch off
and take the lead.
The protests were not self-conscious attempts to organize horizontally
so much as they reflected the organic process of consensus seen in most
friendship circles. This makes sense in that the largely youthful crowd
on the street has more experience with this form of relationship than
with bureaucratic and hierarchical structures. Disputes were dealt with
by those involved rather than any authority stepping in. The only people
asking “who shall lead us?” were those with longer experiences of being
led.
The events that took place during November and December 2010 are called
“student protests” because so many students participated and because of
the focus on education issues. But this shouldn’t suggest that it was
only students involved. Corporate media demonized the non-students that
attended the protests, labelling them professional protesters or outside
agitators. This was intended to prevent the spread of popular protest,
encouraging division and marginalization and implying a hegemony of
self-serving individualism at the protest.
In fact, the protests were attended by many non-students acting out of
solidarity, concern for their children’s education, or simply class
anger. Many students expressed the importance of this solidarity. The
most interesting event in relation to this occurred November 28, when a
local council meeting to discuss general austerity measures was attended
by 100 students and other members of the public. A mini-riot broke out
and 16 police officers where injured when the crowd tried to force its
way into the building. This was one of the first moments that the
student protests could be seen outside of the context of protest for
educational reform. Further attempts were made to draw parallels between
the student protests and other anti-cuts struggles; but as of this
writing, most anti-cuts organizing has been small and directed at
engaging the bureaucracies of local government. It is too early to tell
how influential these protests may be when austerity measures begin to
bite in full force; however, the bar has been set, and escalation may be
inevitable.
The first stage of the struggle is now over. Groups like the National
Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) that once played a purely
logistical role have begun to take conventional positions of power. As
occurred during the anti-war movement against the invasion of Iraq,
these groups are adopting the stance of “legitimate” protest.
As in the Greek riots of December 2008, the end of the year served as
the closing of parentheses around a period of gained momentum. What can
be done to ensure that moments of visible social upheaval are not for
nothing? How can we ensure this momentum is not wasted?
The 2008 Greek riots set the tone for further struggles. The efforts of
Greek anarchists to build a culture of ongoing resistance have heavily
influenced not only the current Greek strikes against austerity measures
but many other acts of resistance around the world. The student protests
can do the same. Where years of inaction had created a reputation of
apathy, the UK now has a refreshed history of student organizing. Future
struggles will begin from this new context. A new generation has its own
personal experiences of resistance in addition to those inherited from
previous generations.
The term “anarchist” has entered public usage once more with both
negative and positive connotations. It’s impossible to gauge the effect
this has had; while some have been introduced to an interesting set of
ideas, others have probably adopted corporate media definitions and the
prejudices that come with them. At this point anarchist book fairs,
social centers, infoshops, and other explicitly anarchist projects have
an important role to play.
We can also confront the discourses aimed at delegitimize our struggles.
Government and corporate media propagate the ideology that the
capitalist economy is directly linked to our very survival. If they
succeed in this, the public will accept the necessity of additional
neoliberal policies, further attacks on the lower classes. Resistance
can polarize society, but we need strong alternative proposals for this
to be a good thing.
Many legal battles are about to begin that will decide the fates of
those arrested over the last few months. Once again this highlights the
importance of long-term infrastructure; between periods of state
repression, we can concentrate on building up skills and passing on
lessons. Although the initial momentum of last year seems to have
dissipated, it’s possible that this energy will adopt other forms. If
people remain engaged in the struggle, they may find themselves back in
the street soon.
Collectively answered in December 2010 by some students involved in the
protests
Q: What factors have contributed to maintain momentum over the last few
weeks?
A: I think there have been numerous reasons for the continued momentum,
many of them being entirely beyond the reach of any “organizer” or
“agitator.” To an extent, it feels as if Millbank awoke something in the
student movement which has not faded yet. The kind of events that took
place on 10/11/10 had not been experienced by most, and say what you
like about its tactical significance or the political consciousness of
those smashing the place apart, Millbank’s most significant outcome
seems to be a huge sense of empowerment that has been built upon and
refined in consequent protests rather than allowed to fade. It is a
sense of empowerment which many students seem to have come to these
demos to recreate simultaneously to expressing their anger.
On the other hand, there are some things which have actively been done
by those involved in the movement—I’m reluctant to call them organizers
because from my experience, it has not been the same bureaucratic
organizations and individuals who have been calling for the
demonstrations—which have helped build momentum. For example, attempting
to engage college and school students on a wider scale was extremely
important after Millbank, and it was an idea which succeeded, judging
from the mass walkouts on November 24. I also think that switching the
focus to local struggle after 10/11/10 has served the movement well
also.
However, I feel that one of the major reasons for the continued momentum
has been the fact that in people’s minds everything was building towards
the day of the vote in parliament. Now that the vote has passed, it is
unclear whether the movement will continue with similar levels of
strength. Usually I would expect a movement not to, but the energy,
atmosphere and sense that people have been radicalised by this struggle
that I witnessed after the demo on Thursday [December 9] are keeping me
optimistic.
Q: Do you feel students have rejected conventional protest institutions
such as unions and even “professional” anarchist groups like the
Anarchist Federation or Solfed? If so, why do you think this has
occurred? How has this affected the struggle?
A: One of the most simultaneously disheartening and exciting things
about the last few weeks has been the role that the NUS has played.
After Millbank, the NUS clearly showed themselves to be unaccountable to
the student movement, reformist at best and ultimately self-serving—a
fact that some of us have known for a while. However, the backlash
against Aaron Porter’s denouncement of the violence at Millbank has
snowballed into a widespread disinterest in the views and actions of the
NUS for many students. Rather than spend time and energy encouraging the
NUS to back the movement, the movement itself has made the NUS largely
irrelevant, which seems to be the best tactic when facing an
organization that wishes to impose itself on others. Having said that,
it is short-sighted to write off the NUS as useless. The union has the
resources to contact almost every student in the country, making them
particularly invaluable in universities in which there are no other
political groups to publicize and engage in building for national
demonstrations and such. The NUS could be a useful tool if they
eventually decide to or are forced to represent the views of the
students fighting these cuts, but they are not necessary and have been
largely bypassed by the movement. Their plan for the day of the vote was
to hold a vigil with 9000 candles on the bank of the Thames, a spectacle
which seemed to be perfectly constructed to highlight their
ineffectiveness and unaccountability while simultaneously celebrating
the fact that the movement failed to stop the vote being passed. In the
end, though, they chose to cancel the event in order to distance
themselves even further from the “violence” that took place earlier in
the day. This perfectly sums up the NUS’s role in the current struggles.
As for anarchist groups, I do not feel they have been rejected by the
movement, primarily because they haven’t put themselves in a position to
be rejected. From my experience working with these groups a little over
the last few weeks, they have usually avoided putting their name to
anything and instead focused on issues and activities that may be more
related to anarchist ideas than others, but in no way conflict with the
general feeling of the movement. For example, encouraging direct action,
the use of face masks, engaging and networking with college and school
students as well as worker movements, and occasionally offering up an
alternative analysis of the cuts and the struggle so far. All extremely
important, but none which involve attempting to alter the general
direction of the movement.
Q: What role do you feel the occupations have played? Are there
different dynamics than on the street?
A: I can only speak of the occupations I have experienced directly,
these being the Sussex and Brighton University occupations. Each of
these were very different, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
I feel that the Sussex occupation, which began 5 days after 10/11/10,
was badly timed and implemented, but nonetheless allowed for a space in
which to discuss Millbank and plan for the day of action on the 24^(th).
The Brighton occupation however began on the day of action and continued
for over two weeks acting as a productive and consistent space in which
to organize. In part I feel that it was because the Brighton occupation
more successfully captured the dynamics from the streets. It was the
university’s first occupation in 18 years and began off the back of a
demo. This excitement persisted through some organizational challenges,
enabling the occupation to become an active hub of discussion and
organization in the center of Brighton.
Overall, however, I feel that the effectiveness of occupations has
diminished since last year when most local student movements were
fighting the cuts being implemented on their own campuses. This year the
issue has become much more national, and it could be argued that
occupations serve less of a purpose. Despite this, many have been
invaluable in organizing on a local level.
Q: What do you think are the paradoxes of being an anarchist involved
with protests against cuts to state-funded education?
A: I don’t necessarily see any paradoxes as I do not see revolution and
reform as polar opposites. While many local anti-cuts movements are
protesting the cuts, they are also setting up or at least considering
alternatives to the current system, such as the Really Open University
at Leeds and the teach-ins which have been popping up at university
occupations.
Geographies of the Kettle: Containment, Spectacle & Counter-Strategy: A
critical appraisal of the police tactic of “kettling” demonstrations,
and how to resist it
Movement beyond “Actions”: An insightful critique of the limitations of
“activism” as the default setting for resistance movements in the UK,
especially as we enter an era of widespread discontent