Nb: this is a work in progress. Most of the critiques or evaluations of the g20 summit protests that I’ve encountered have tended to work from the position that perhaps the point of these sorts of protests is to “spread the struggle”, raise awareness, and maybe even kickstart a revolution. Tactics involving property damage are therefore negative, criticised as alienating the majority of the Australian population and making “ordinary people” less likely to “join in” – the group of people that saw it necessary to mobilize around the g20 being the only people that are in any way radical, revolutionary or rebellious. To me, the point of summit protest is not to “spread ideas” to the “majority population”. It seems unlikely that someone uninvolved with a summit protest and perhaps with little knowledge of the issues the protestors are exploring would be suddenly radicalized through watching a few images of a few people standing around with placards on their television screens any more so than they would be in watching some people smash barricades and throw rocks – or urine filled condoms, for that matter – at police. Watching people smash stuff might at least be slightly more interesting. At best, any form of protest, whether or not property damage is a part of it, is likely to perhaps intrigue some people present to join in – which did occur in this instance – or intrigue some who were not directly involved, perhaps inspiring them to explore the critique of capitalist summits and perhaps get involved in similar events in the future.

What then is the purpose of summit protest? I’m sure that the answer to this question differs, at least to an extent, for all those who engage in such activities. For me, one of the primary purposes of summit protest such as that surrounding the g20 is to take the struggle and critique of capitalism and the g20 itself directly to the institution itself, in an attempt to disrupt the meeting. Were the tactics taken by those loosely identified as the arterial bloc effective if evaluated in light of this purpose? The passive police presence during the Saturday protests presented us with a unique – and probably never to be repeated – opportunity for disruption. And adopting a tactic which involved militant actions and property damage to an extent allowed the protest to take advantage of this.

Where I would critique the actions taken would be in their relation to the purpose of disrupting the meeting. While, for example, targeting a police truck is strategic in that the truck – and the police themselves – are part of the institution that is the g20 through their protection of it and its interests, and while it was, as was most of what occurred, a spontaneous action, it is interesting to think what may have happened if the energy that went into that action went towards attempting to not just smash the barricades but to get past them. Yet this was an experiment, and was pulled together in an extremely short amount of time, with very little of it planned. And in that light, what was achieved was pretty amazing. Nothing like this has really happened before in Australia.

The other aspect in which I think summit protest can be evaluated is in the way in which those involved learn to organise with each other in a way which is non-hierarchical, and enhances the autonomy of all individuals as well as the collective. From my perspective, organising prior to the day was quite effective. Meetings were open and inclusive, and discussion enabled varied contributions. The bloc itself was an experiment in decentralized organising among affinity groups, and for the most part communication on the day between groups was also fairly effective through a system of spokescouncils. It was not until the afternoon that communication became difficult in the chaos, and in trying to get people out of the intersection once it became surrounded by police, from which some people dispersed whilst others stayed behind trying to make sure that other people that had not been involved with the arterial bloc were not stuck behind, and so on.

Another aspect to the Saturday actions that I found to be really effective was in the engagement between the performance groups and between those groups and the arterial bloc. I felt that in having both the bloc and the clowns, zombies, cheerleaders and tranny cops working collectively, for the same strategic goals and with the same politics did actually create an image and atmosphere that was brighter, and also more positive. Even as I dismiss the ability of summit protest to “spread the struggle” or etc, I feel that in creating an image or impression which is softer, more fun and more positive, we are attempting to avoid instilling fear in those present but not involved, which I think has been a negative consequence of organising protest in blocs in the past. On another level, it also allows protest to be expressed in a way that is creative and varied, both creating a certain atmosphere and allowing people to organise in a different way, through dance and performance as well as through confrontation. The performance groups were able to effectively work as a distraction in certain circumstances, in lightening the mood and relieving tension in other circumstances, and also in a practical sense in moving between bloc members and police to provide an exit route from the barricades when necessary and occupying space. The communication between the groups allowed us to work together, spontaneously performing with and off each other, switching roles and providing each other with a path out at times, and adopting different roles for the same goals at other times. Each group was also in constant communication with members of the arterial bloc, attending spokescouncils and etc.

For me, the protest was extremely successful on another level – that being the emancipation and radicalization of those involved. I think that what was able to be achieved empowered those that were a part of it – no one was really sure what a bloc such as this one would be able to accomplish. Maybe because of that its capabilities were not taken to the extent that they could have been. But what has definitely come out of that weekend is the realization of the power of autonomous action, even of a small group of people. To be able to act, freely, directly, militantly is an experience of liberation, of autonomy, is the exploration of each individual’s ability to think and act with no restrictions and no boundaries, aside from those that they set for themselves. It is a focusing experience, a radicalizing experience, and experience which changes a person and the expectations and hopes that they have for themselves and those that they choose to work and organise with.

It seems unlikely that the same opportunity will present itself again. APEC will certainly be a very different experience, and perhaps the possibilities will be more limited. But if each person involved with these actions has left inspired, radicalized, with the feeling of emancipation fresh in their minds, who knows what actions or projects – extending far beyond summit protest – may be inspired.

Where perhaps summit protest can be a point at which to engage with other people that may not have been involved in a similar action before is before the event, in the organising stages, and afterwards, in communication and discussions about what happened, its purposes, and the theory behind the actions that were taken. In saying that summit protest itself is not the moment in which to attempt to extend the inclusivity of protest movements, I don’t mean to say that it is not problematic that summit protest movements are generally fairly small, and quite homogenous in terms of their composition, which clearly reflects a lack of engagement with people outside that same circles and class/racial/institutional backgrounds. At the same time though, I don’t mean engagement in the sense that those involved in summit protest are the only people engaged in any form of anti capitalist struggle or critique, and therefore need to “bring in” others. Summit protest is merely one expression of this struggle or movement, one expression of disdain for the system. Different people choose to express their struggles in different ways, personally or collectively, in ways that may or may not be deemed a struggle or protest by others.

The homogeneity of summit protest movements does, however, express a wider problem within the anti-capitalist movement/s, which I believe is a lack of engagement, communication, organising and networking between different people, networks, groups, collectives, etc. I feel that any social movement needs to come from a process of networking, communication, and organisation between people at a local, and then much broader level – a process through which anti-capitalist communities are created, which may one day become post-capitalist communities. But this process of creating community is a long process. The foundations, perhaps, are in communication. In exploring the way in which we communicate, where we communicate, who we communicate with, and the relationships we form through communication. In experimenting with different forms of communication, in recognizing that we communicate differently with different people in different spaces; that we need to do this if we are to engage with people with which we have less in common that others. In finding bonds that link us to those with which we have had relatively little engagement.

I think that this is why A Space Outside was, for me, such an amazing experience. It was exciting, inspiring. The feeling of so many people, being and living and working together, the creation of a space for discussion and engagement and open, non-hierarchical communication in which a new politics was actually developed and explored. For a short period of time, a space existed in which people felt they could contribute to discussion, be part of a movement, autonomously engage with others in a way which was not oppressive or oppressed. A Space Outside was, of course, the product of a particular context and atmosphere, and cannot be reproduced. It was also quite homogenous in terms of the composition of those who attended. While it was a space for people who had not been previously involved in a similar action or event, or had not previously engaged deeply with anti-capitalist issues were able to participate, learn, contribute, and grow, these were people of certain circles and backgrounds – mostly white, university educated, and loosely linked to “activist” circles. Yet this amazing experience can be used in working out how to create other spaces, both temporary and more permanent spaces, for communication. And communication with a much, much broader range of individuals and groups – two way communication, involving not just talking but listening.

In talking of creating spaces, I feel that is not worthwhile to dismiss the institutions that already exist that can be spaces for communication, and for creating new sets of relationships and networks. While most institutions are environments in which certain types of social relationships tend to be reproduced, which are often hierarchical, unequal, or repressive, these institutional environments are environments within which many people of different backgrounds come together regularly, and are to an extent forced to communicate. The workplace, the university, the community centre, the Centrelink office. Rather than dismissing these spaces as spaces in which to organise, perhaps we should be looking at how we can challenge the forms of relationships which such spaces tend to produce, and using them to develop relationships and networks which promote autonomy and agency. Using them to listen to the concerns of others, to talk about the things that worry you. To talk about and listen to what you want, what you desire. And how you can get it. Together, perhaps.
Yet at the same time, there needs to be spaces which are not a product of the institutional environment of capitalism. Spaces that engage people that do not have regular links to institutions. Spaces that are autonomous, safe, radical.

What happened at A Space Outside was so intense because people had common together for the common purpose of resisting the g20, yet what was discussed went so much further than that. In creating other spaces that can be spaces for discussion and for organising, I think that we need to explore what brings people together. Why do people communicate, not just how. We – and in saying we in this instance I am referring to those that are somewhat affiliated with what tend to be white, “activist” circles that organise around summit protest – often seem to assume that what unites us, what will bring us together, is our common opposition to a particular expression of capitalism. This is what we use to create our spaces of communication and organisation. Yet perhaps by doing this we limit ourselves to temporary engagement and temporary systems of organising. These may, no doubt, be the most intense and exciting experiences of collectivity. But also perhaps the most limited in terms of broad engagement. Perhaps a common that is more permanent, broader, and more adaptable and open for discussion is what we desire, rather than simply what we are against. Not that the two sides are separate – in creating what we desire we are necessarily rejecting and resisting what we are against – but perhaps in shifting the focus or emphasis we are able to create spaces which are still spaces of resistance but resistance in the form of actively building the kind of community that is desired. Maybe if spaces are spaces of creativity, of construction, then they can become spaces of communication with people outside the same, limited circles.

I’m not quite sure if this makes complete sense because my thoughts are still developing. But I think in discussing how we can communicate and organise with people that we don’t normally communicate or organise with, we need to create spaces in which communication has a purpose. And perhaps the purpose that will link people that may not involve themselves in summit protest, create a reason for broad networking and the development of different forms of social relations that go beyond certain circles, is the creation or development of something that we all want or need. In growing food, maybe. Or in having a space with facilities that can be used by those that need them, but is autonomous and permanent and a space for regular engagement with others. I’m not sure. While having squatted spaces is amazing, and creates an atmosphere of autonomy and excitement and resistance, perhaps we also need spaces that are not squatted, for those that would not feel comfortable – at least not at first – in going to a squatted space, and also for more permanency and stability. I’m also not saying that creating spaces for engagement around summit protest, and within white, university educated, “activist” circles and scenes are not necessary, useful and amazing. But in attempting to further an anti-capitalist social movement, there needs to be many spaces, around or for many different things, in which many different sorts of people and forms of relationships can be created and explored. The more different spaces there are for learning and for discussion, the more different spaces and avenues there are for developing communities which are actively anti-capitalist, and the more spaces there are for minds to be opened to critical thinking, which is itself emancipatory. In actively working to create networks and relationships which are non-hierarchical, open, productive, and emphasize agency and autonomy and critique, we are resisting, while planting the seeds of the revolution.

~a