Friday, 1 November 2013

William Rowe: Commentary on the exchange between Jennifer and Jacob and Tom (Poetry &/or Revolution)

As I see it, what we find in this exchange is external suffering and violence, including the old violence of gender, transferred into the relations between our statements; into our rhetoric and our ways of addressing each other. We should not be surprised, or dwell on shame; the point is to carry it across into the struggle for a classless society and into the solidarity between ourselves necessary for such a struggle. Of course, revolutionary solidarity doesn’t exclude abrasive relations between ideas; on the other hand it doesn’t exclude patiently explaining. I suggest that we should seek to grasp the different modes of transferal of that pain (of violence to women, of the dead of the Commune . . . ) to the ways in which we address others, both inside and outside the revolutionary movement.

Jennifer cites Keston Sutherland’s conception of revolutionary poetry (in his paper at the Poetry and Revolution Conference, Birkbeck, 2012) as what ‘must hurt and thrill a reader with an irresistible premonition of the feeling of being more fully and really alive than ever before, the feeling that is the true, unmistakable and inalienable basis of revolutionary subjective universality.’ She counterposes her own sense that poetry can respond to the ‘wish to sustain the solidarity we first feel’ (in acts of collective protest), in a situation in which, she adds, ‘Poetry’s representation of solidarity does not, I think, recreate or replicate the experience I have been describing, but it may remind us of it, keep it under our eyes, provide a place to recall the bodily sensations and emotions of protest.’

The word that needs taking further is ‘true’. I am not sure that it’s enough to say that the truth of poetry in the context of revolution consists of ‘the emotions of protest’ or of ‘being [. . . ] really alive’ as ‘subjective universality.’ Keston states very well the context of suffering, of being reduced to almost nothing in the vast expanse of capital, which gives force to the revolutionary sense of being alive like never before. Yet the sense of expansion – an absolute feature of proletarian uprising – is limited by both Jennifer and Keston to the subjective sphere. What about the fissures that uprising sends shooting through the social fabric, not to speak of the fabric of time? (Spreading terror through the bourgeoisie). It seems to me that both Jennifer and Keston stay within the limits of protest.

I suggest considering whether the Rimbaud poem that Jacob and Tom cite (‘What does it matter for us, my heart’) goes beyond those limits. Doesn’t it, at the end, include a passage through death, i.e. a revolutionary ecstasy, driven by revenge, the burning of the old order, generating brotherhood and sisterhood in that situation, the heart unable to rest? Couldn’t it be said that the truth of this poem is a metaphysical truth, in the sense of a truth that takes the place of the old metaphysics, including Kant’s subjective forms of time and space, and that this truth seizes hold of the destruction of capitalist space and grasps its replacement by epochal change?

I will finish, if I may, with a few brief notes (requiring further work!) on what might be the relation between poetry and truth in a revolutionary epoch like our own.

   1. The truth of poetry seizes history at the same point as Benjamin’s angel, at the abyss between the pain and suffering of the oppressed and the classless society that’s possible.
   2. Poetry translates the Real into an absolute language, which is not natural language. The gap between poetry and natural language is insurrection, the ‘waves of fire’ invoked by Rimbaud after the defeat of the Paris Commune, absolute negativity.
   3. ‘The True is [ . . . ] the Bacchanalian revel in which no member is not drunk’ (Hegel).
   4. The truth of poetry has passed through death, the second death: the symbolic, not the physiological one.
   5. It will break down the walls of literature as it currently exists, and will seize hold of the means of production of sense and place it at the disposal of the proletariat to come.

Thursday, 25 July 2013

Chris Gutkind: Individual and Collective word-work

I’ll try to keep this brief, much has been said already, here and in person and at the conference and elsewhere, and I don’t really want to repeat too much. I’ve liked the contributions. Some very much, there’s some good rigorous thought, and I think practical suggestions of how to go forward, what we might do etc., are the most vital right now. Please give my words some allowance, I tend to talk about these things in general terms, I’m not against specifics, the roots of things and the detail of what we might do, but I like to put things as simply as I can when it comes to politics. And I tend to think our collective work will have more impact if we think as simply and clearly as we can, which is not to say we won't be dealing with complex things and some of our endeavours will also be complex.

I start with the assumption the dominant and prevalent system most people are live in is full of suffering and degrading and not letting us live humanely or fulfilling us as far as we need or nearly as much as we can live, and that we all want radical change, something very transformational, so the question is how we get there and, specifically, how we can help. We are running out of time and vastly outnumbered though it is possible to change things and we have try.

We are meeting as a group so we are wondering what can we do collectively in some form. Already people do good artistic or informative or activist stuff individually and there is a place for that. There are a lot of different approaches in our group, poetic ways and life ways, and that should make us stronger collectively, combining things, as we see fit, as a whole or in various parts. The point is: we are pissed off at the suffering, the rulers, and the bullshit, like the bullshit of some baby the usual interests feel, and shout about right now, who is more important than other babies, and we are all good with words in our various ways, and we’ve all come together, so what are we gonna actually do, together, about it? Is there something we can actually do that might help, make a useful contribution? But together, since we’ve come together, and what is together anyway, what do we mean by that in our situation? I’m not sure myself but we gotta start getting together and talking about it. Some good ideas have been put out and hopefully we’re all thinking about it but I know my thoughts and determination and usefulness in this will be stronger if we talk together and try and figure things out more. We could really be stronger together. Isn’t that the old truth? Even though, and actually because, they are stronger together too, especially since most of them don’t feel they are so together, making oppression. The spectacle is so strong these days, candy-coated god-baby all over our screens, but we have the heads and imagination to anti it and help people consider other ways, what we’re missing and what is better.

I am also aware, though this is intuition, that there must be people like us but doing very different creative things, not word based, and that we desperately need to find these people and work with them as well. As well, there are many poets that have been in far worse societal-situations than us, and maybe we can learn from them, though I am fairly ignorant of the details of such ‘moments’.

And: what can we do that only we can do? So as not to repeat other efforts? Not to exclusivize us, or exclude us from other ways, but rather to work with what we can really do well etc.

Monday, 22 July 2013

Martin Bakero: Militancy of Poets

The first revolutionary action that people from the commune of Paris did in 1871, was to break all the clocks of the city. That action engaged the possibility to revolutionaries to go beyond all the limits that reality imposes upon us. Centuries before, the troubadour poets, the “Knights of Joyful Knowledge”, met together once a year to find a new word or neologism in the manner of an antidote for words that limited the freedom of people. One of them was the word “mors” (dead), the poet who were chose for that task, Truc Malec, returns the next year to propose to the poets of Trobar Clus the word “amors” (love or specifically “not dead”), inventing a new way to go beyond the limits of the human being. Those actions are examples of what we can do in terms of politically poetic actions. Open the borders of reality to bring more freedom to people.

Go beyond time. We must create associations with scientists, mystics, farmers, people who know how to work with materials, and then imagine new connexions of things in the world. To emancipate people from the slave condition of “meaning”. Words, syllables, whispers, colours, sounds...which will open poetry from its exclusively communicational function, to stop merely making sense so as to develop the experience of a more playful state of liberation of the mind and the flesh: to unchain the tongue of the signification system, in order to open the atom-sparks of joy.

The poet is the one who is supposed to know how to deal with the transformation of things, he is that one who has to be trained, all his life, into the guerrilla state of “déreglement de tous les sens” "the derangement of all the senses" (as Rimbaud, Nerval, Hugo, Arnim and Novalis said) and in that way she must take care of the power of capability of the creation of new ideas and explore constantly the possibilities for producing freedom in the world. The poet can connect things in a way to prove that the other can complete the self, the existence of oneself is nothing without the other, because the distance of the other one can show us a hidden part that we can’t see by ourselves.

The problem of Violence is the selfish accumulation of things only for private property, “Property is theft” says Proudhon, that is the terrible sentence that capitalism gave to us. But it’s the same about the creations or discoveries that poets keep for themselves without sharing them with the people. The poet only produces the half part of the poem, the rest is the reader or the listener. The power of poetry and its capacity to revolutionize and to propose new links between things, could become mere accumulation and a source of unnecessary violence, and of no help to human society, if we don't show collectively, to others, the free associations that traverse us. If we don’t show the way by the way that we poets we break free from the excess of reality. Reality indeed dominated by paranoiacs, politicians and economic speculators.

The principal enemies of freedom and the mutation of the world were, for Surrealists: family, nation and religion. They used to link Marx, Fourier, Freud and Rimbaud to propose the necessity of changing the world. Those concepts are now the basis of every liberal republic. The fixed aspects of those things don’t allow us the possibility to grow and feel the power of hidden marvellous destinies, and the combat against the fixed things is an old struggle of poetry.

Actually poets are engaged with the constant militant “discrepancy” from reality to keep ourselves free from capitalist misery and from being governed by people who only consider the singularity of human beings as a medium to achieve the accumulation of goods and not as a goal in itself. If the poet is able to have the courage to keep himself free from it in many ways, then he will able to return to reality to produce new symbols, articulations of beauty, symbols of transformation.

During these days the majority of artists deal only with their ego and try to put themselves inside reality without any criticism and to win lots of money and prizes, each one is under the slave position of their own personal ego as a master; to achieve a mission commanded by his or her own family, town or ideas of success. We forgot that we are always linked with all the “pluriverses” and we are connected to the multiple resonances of things, and in that way we cannot forget the destiny of human beings, animals, natures, stars and great transparent. We now that collective ideas can go farther than single ones. One of the topmost struggles in inner life is that one between reality and desire, and in that way we must need to create new spaces into reality to bring life to singular desires, individuals and collectives. We don’t allow repression of instincts, nor any oppression of freedom, but instead we are compelled to create Spaces where resonances of untried analogies could happen. To combat the control that the newspapers, television, and mass communication have over us, all of them absolutely under the political and business power control and we must display to the world that another kind of life is possible.

Like Charles Fourier’s attempts to create a new kind of organization of collective live, by the way of respect for passions, and spontaneous ways to express together those passions and desires. Without repression or mistreating the other. Not by way of adapting people to the idea of work in something that they don’t like, and the alienation that it produces to us. Instead we must propose new ways of organization in the sense of spontaneous associations and desires of the subject and community, to be shared with the others, and where every one could work in joy and freedom about the things that she loves, sharing them, and that will impel collective power. We must also propose new community rituals and awake the poetry of single existence in books or printed paper, to bring them into action. Like the pre-pythagorean poets who heal the cities and propose new solutions to individual and collective problems.

The speculation of poets with theirs own careers, managing only their single individual destiny, is maybe the most dangerous effect of neoliberalism in arts. We have no more anonymous actions of poetry, or collective creations. We accept to pay taxes, to read the newspaper, to watch television, without any action to deconstruct that. How we can continue to accept the discourse that produces fear and makes people more alienated and puts us into false necessity to respect political power, that television, pharmacy and newspapers determine and that tries to confine reality to all their business plans of weapons, invention of terrorism, legal drugs, politicians who bring more fear to the world, and fear is the enemy of joyful knowledge.

If we are not in the way of speculation, we must prepare ourselves to deal with the excess of sensibility of beauty and to learn how to do with it. We must create objects together that can witness and share our perception of things, we need to meet us like here to think together about poetical ideas who can bring happiness and health to the world. We must demand all the money that military, pharmacy and political power brings to weapons and to the dangerous idea of “nation”. We must demand that those resources must become free for collectives, poetic work to change the world, and not only grants to have more celebrity, more public, more money...

We must struggle against the idea of nation, “why should someone who was born some kilometres away from me be my enemy just because we are from different nations?”

Georges Bataille said that if we don't use the energy that grows into us, the product of exchange with the universe, it could transform itself into something that will destroy us and we will pay for that inevitable explosion. The nations of the world expend all their wealth into weapons to kill other humans beings, and that is the sad destiny of that internal entropy. If instead we eliminate the idea of nations and we use that energy for something else, where we poets share the mission of open the mind of the world.

We must build new societies with the same substance of dreams, to propose new political organization farther than democracies or totalitarianisms, poetic revolutions where people can follow their own singularities and at the same time respect and encourage the other ones. Without a master like “state”, who was the principal criticism from Bakunin to Marx. We can meet regularly to think and to create collectivities, because we can go together to more powerful and durable thoughts. To fight old symbolisms and fixed ideas and then propose to create new ones or to return to better ones that brings us more peace and joy, symbols that can develop analogies of apparently opposite things. Like by example in Mexico we must returns to the idea of “the plumed serpent”, more than the symbol of an eagle eating a serpent!

Let's go to break some tvs in front of parliament or the queen’s house.

Don’t read the newspapers, fight the idea of a so ugly reality.

Combat the idea of monotheism that doesn’t allow another gods or demons, why should we have to believe in only one god or one queen? How we could open the space to different kinds of thoughts and not impose on others our own vision of religion or faith.

Create new articulations of time and space. Go beyond the gregorian calendar, adopt new kind of organizations and definitions of time: “the time of a coffee”, “the time of sleep”, the time of making love, the time of reading a book, etcetera...

Create new kinds of association between people where we could be united better than by family who impose to us fixed ideas of ego or success.

We need places for spontaneous improvisations and to group us in troupes of action poets. Free association of human beings from the below to above, not the control of our wills that the State tries to impose upon us.

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Michael Tencer: Critical Convocation (6 June 2013)

Danny Hayward's suggestion for a process of association & small group affiliation in the eighth point of his conference paper seems so basic as to hopefully be over-obvious to some of you by now, yet it's a sign of our austere, miserabilist, cubicle-infested times that radical poets & activists need to gather in the formality of a conference setting to seriously even advance that possibility. In the isolation of the individual career the poet's task is pathetically circumscribed, reduced to competitive word slinging & grading for congratulatory micro-readership; the same can be said for a gathering of such careers, based upon elective affinities, which is insufficiently rigorous in its inward & outward critical practice. The various poetic scenes do not form or hold together here by commitment to jointly organised purpose & visionary poesis, but are rather divided & marketed into 'merciless and mercenary gang[s] of cold-blooded slaves and assassins, called, in the ordinary prostitution of language, friends'; & in this moment as we've lately been witness to the keeling wreckage of the largest socialist organisation in the UK, we can also recognise some present-day poetic cliques drowning in personal, moral & economic compromise.

It's a good sign that there's a conference on militant poetics raising explicitly non-rhetorical questions, & a good starting point for poets to at least think thru the implications of a shared poetic militancy. But what are the forms this ought to take to make any fucking difference at all, to effect a reversal in the seemingly endless parade of abhorrences & loss of common rights? You know as well as I do that the precedents for such groupings are so distant today as to force an overly self-conscious appraisal upon an otherwise organic development of autonomous activism. (Just think of how absurd it feels to utter the compound 'militant poet'). There are grouplets of formidable militants already functionally organised today -- just of the few which demand to be mentioned in this context as practical models or theoretical allies I'd bring up the International Socialist Network & the Association of Musical Marxists, both disappointingly missing from this conference's roster -- but aside from these extremely encouraging developments that NOBODY READING THIS BELONGS TO, there are hardly any participants in this conference old enough to have directly experienced such a grouping as we agree is urgently needed right now, -- tho I think we'd also agree there are elements of particular groupings some conference participants at one time belonged to which no doubt deserve to be shared & built upon.

In the interest of clarity, & attempting to avoid the kind of extensive reference material which can hamper or muddy the immediate discussion, I'd like to critique some of what has been said, & propose some of the specific elements I think we can learn from the past which could be generalised & expanded upon in our current work together.

1. Underground newspapers are better than 'journals'; DIY fanzines are better than blogs (tho blogs allow wider distribution of timely information, except of course under internet 'blackouts'). The platform to create right now is the one you want to stumble onto accidentally & ecstatically & co-create on impact, it is not the one that you're assigned to (or, yeh, assign). This isn't some market research tool, this is taking seriously immediate subjective satisfaction as a necessary beginning on social change. Liberation is never boring, & you don't have to sacrifice your sense of pleasure to appeal to anyone's education, taste or posterity.

1b. Political newspapers began to die when they ceased to feature COMIX. The anarchists, in creativity, are beating the living shit out of marxists today because they're the only radicals putting on paper their sense of a living liberation. You know this every time you pick up another propaganda rag at a rally & yet again find yourself sifting thru the same pat answers for the ostensible good of the uninitiated prior to lining your birdcage with it or pawning it off on some other schlub: We can do better by simply talking. Say what you will about lifestyle anarchism, the active anarchist groups today are producing a means of expression appropriate to their ideas, & no matter how many Kenny Goldsmiths hatch from the scanner/OCR, expression remains the prima materia of militant poetics.

2. you HAVE TO MIX outside your scene, HAVE TO, full stop. this is OBVIOUS. You cannot make in 2013 a revolution of predominantly university-educated white guys. Important steps are being taken in finally INTRODUCING poets of black liberation, of feminist & LGBTQ  & working class militancy to the 101, & relearning the history of the medium thru them -- but history, while NEEDFUL, is never enough, it must be lived right now or you've got yourself a corpse in your mouth. The corpse may indeed be yours. You already know this; David Grundy's paper usefully examined this. Let's do something about it.

2b. International organised resistance is the only effective means of combatting an international system of unfreedom. Exclusively local organisation is no longer a sufficient strategy for even exclusively local change. With the resurrection of the EDL & a concomitant rise in Little Englander values among all the shades of Parliament, we cannot afford to collaborate with, or produce & distribute to, exclusively British poets & activists. It seems like an obvious point, but the conference was almost entirely British. It's something to think about & easily correct.

2c. Contrary to Justin Katko's proposal, developing an 'emergent code-writing, particularly useful for speaking in a language that the enemy cannot understand', would not constitute a helpful development for the purposes of political change. First, as already mentioned, most poets are already only reaching other poets today: Poetry is already code. Revolutionary organisation necessarily entails working with people who aren't already militants among us, or we will fail miserably to alter anything beyond our self-image. Particularly when it comes to illegal or violent forms of protest, an exclusionary militant minority is the Leftwing's kiss of death: let us recall the Angry Brigade or Earth Liberation Front or Red Army Faction or any cute bunch of urban guerillas who succeed in 'speaking for' the masses as they valiantly alienate themselves, speeding up the process of division among prevailing mass movements & laying out the red carpet for state paramilitary force reaction. Rather than code-writing, in fact, successful militant actions thruout radical history have entailed the use of multiform & inclusive languages among all the various constituents. Consider, for instance, the Wobbly-organised Lawrence Textile Strike 101 years ago, in which 25 different languages were spoken among the factory workers: interpreters were organised for every language spoken, allowing workers from all backgrounds decisionmaking agency. This is a markedly different approach from that of a code-language, & unlike a group of poets talking secret words to each other, can actually work in facilitating sociopolitical change.

3a. I think the particular questions about demonstration tactics, e.g. What can we do with slogans, what about pranks, etc., are tangential concerns for the present time, meaningfully developed as they are only collectively & contingent to unfolding events. The question of slogans, tho recurrent thruout the conference, is truly a minor one: after all, does anyone really believe that a slogan, rather than a committed collective built upon past achievements & struggles, tips the scale towards winning political gain? Moreover, why should poets be any better at creating slogans than any other protesters?

3b. Also, to those who advocate putting aside our poetry in favour of 'pure' activism: why not simply join activist & political organisations already formed rather than start from scratch with a mangy bunch of poets in tow?

4. Keston Sutherland is Wrong: for attempting to set down an esthetic programme of social realism, despite his expansive radical humanist definition of that otherwise insipid genre & despite being correct about how useful such a 'revolutionary subjective universality' in poetics would be. The greatest strength of poets is their ability to take in the whole world & to process it in absolutely divergent valid ways. Poetry is the quintessential art of exception -- you're not doing poetry or politics any favours by declaring what we poets 'need' to, 'must', do poetically. Even as I may agree with the values of poets who achieve the criteria which Keston Sutherland lays out, -- if I recognise the potential gains to be made from a poetry fully cognisant of the range of liberatory desires as well as slights & limitations, steadily sensitive to internal & external pressures upon the subject as well as the effect & character of any change or stasis over time, -- I disagree that it would be effective for a poetic organisation to develop as the arbiter of any poetic mode. As a previous manifesto on the dialectical interplay between politics & esthetics once put it: 'Our aims: The independence of art -- for the revolution. The revolution -- for the complete liberation of art!'

5. I think that imagining the miserable futures we can deduce from present miseries is not a useful or even interesting activity. In many ways, learning & discussing historical precedents of resistance & rebellion, & comparing these precedents with the present moment, creates a more meaningful vision of the future (if such a vision is needed at all -- some might be more interested in discussing this history as uncovering a more meaningful vision of the present). Certain important militant poetic precedents have already been discussed at the conference & its internet environs, for instance, the work & collaborative relations around Mayakovsky, Brecht, Vallejo, Diane di Prima, Amiri Baraka, Nazim Hikmet, Pasolini, Raul Zurita, & the free jazz musicians David Grundy obliquely references, as well as recent experiments in collaboration like Wu Ming or Jow Lindsay's multiprong attacks. But one example which seems to have largely gone unremarked beyond summary gestures of acknowledgement or dismissal -- & which I'll contradict myself to reference directly -- is the International Surrealist movement, which remains, regardless of what you think (or think you think) of their work, a model of political engagement & worldwide esthetic collaboration, continuously exemplary after nearly a century's development. I strongly recommend to the participants of the conference struggling to materialise an appropriate organisational form a reading of Surrealism Against the Current: Tracts and Declarations, particularly Michael Richardson & Krzysztof Fijalkowski's introduction, 'Surrealism as a Collective Adventure', on the critical appraisal of group structure. Many others have written more extensively on the theoretical basis of Surrealism in relation to the history of resistance against exploitation & oppression -- just among fairly recent publications, cf. Donald LaCoss & Raymond Spiteri's Surrealism, Politics and Culture, Michael Löwy's Morning Star, Robin D.G. Kelley's Freedom Dreams, Penelope Rosemont's Surrealist Women anthology & Ron Sakolsky's anthology Surrealist Subversions -- but for a specific view towards organisational forms appropriate to militant poetics, I think this would stand as necessary reading even for those with persistent allergies to the unconscious.

*Also, just before I send this, & in keeping with the unrevised chicken scratch spirit of these enblogged proceedings, I remembered another precedent which could prove quite relevant for the purposes of the conference: Derek Bailey's Company Weeks. Contra any lingering taste of party-pooperage above, I would wholeheartedly support the establishment of games & creative collaborations. It is literally impossible to avoid the element of play in the context of radical association; that is an aspect of our work I think that we should FLAUNT.

I believe the first importance now is to experiment with organisational forms & see what's feasible in each incarnation; & to look around to other groups & individuals, artists & activists, with whom we might associate. Beyond that there's plenty room to build thru collaboration, inquiry & critique. I am partial to beginning from the dialectical analysis & clarity of Jennifer Cooke's 'Statement of Contradictions' -- this seems to me the document most central to proceeding, a necessary form of thinking if we are to build unburdened by misconceptions.

Keep me in touch with the developing work in the UK, & I will add whatever I can towards bridging the gap from NY.

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Chris Paul: Improvised response to the Militant Poetics website (4 June 2013)

I couldn't make it to Birkbeck the other week – I live in Wales and sadly I was too broke to make it there – only oligarchs take train these days. As a poet I locate myself severally, across time zones, nations, decades – etc – but praxis is located and determined by the material, obv.

I am grateful for Jow's notion of keeping poetry to a minimum – for me the value of poetry is in rupture, conceptual/sensual disruption, its expansion of the art of the possible – but in terms of de-privatising and democratizing capital production, meeting future energy needs within climatically sustainable limits, altering the perception that the economic, the environmental, and the constitutional are mutually exclusive pursuits, avoiding false flag hysteria, protecting civil liberties as the economic elite fuckbuddyup with the conservative right to shoddy up their mutual interests, resisting hegemonic shite grilloesque populism, securing supply chains and essential services (like hospital refrigeration) as we strip past peak oil, avoiding food crisis if these supply chains are suspended, mobilizing class interest along class instead of racial lines, defining a sustainable constitutional space on an internationalist basis to avoid races to the bottom and vulture corporatism, de-centralising the power grid with no nuclear power, rejecting property rights as the cornerstone of policing, ensuring representation across the media and the judiciary, opening out media ownership, establishing tax justice international, seeing off fall out from trade derivative collapse, sustainable public transport, insulating the vulnerable from hyper inflation and currency war, miantaining the remnants of the welfare satate, resisting expansion of war and a new international cold war when syria is in ashes and iran vulnerable – poetry's value is limited....I think actually we (poets) have a vital role in documenting these concerns, articulating them in disinterested aesthetic circles, as a means of 'saying nothing', breaking into fresher epistemological ground. However, these concerns are essentially material and temporal – and the right are actively setting about, consciously or otherwise, in setting the conditions where popular dissent becomes shaped along divisive lines – inter-generational tensions (as in the london riots – this will be exacerbated as the benefit cuts kick in), and racial lines, we see clusters of EDL supporters petrol bombing mosques. We face a wholesale failure of the political class, and representative democracy, like prose, has reached its limits in terms of effecting this change – but we need to address to make structural alternatives through any channel that will listen, – SWP, Greens, SNP, Plaid, Labour, the CPGB, Occupy, the TUC, NUS, WI, FoE, CND, Greenpeace, radical independence, syrzia, Tax Uncut etc, etc. We exist where we are – severally, let's debate and dialogue, talk shit, actively though this and other channels, from where we are now – we'll never attain ideological perfection or revolutionary readiness, dualist fallacy, but we can sure as hell organise ourselves intellectually, as a foundation for political and social action, to withstand the shitstorm of history and elitist self interest coming our way.  We have no war but the class war but recognising and removing privilege is a driver in all this – intersectionality is vital, resistance, autonomy, equality of decision making, accountability, 'the proletariat are recruited from all segments of society' but perception of class consciousness is drawn from along sterotypes determined by the bourgeois.  As Europe is pauperized and we enter neo-feudalism – we need to address the big questions of the age in tangible terms – what does – eg – Keston Sutherland think we should do with the Euro really? – it is not enough for us to simply say 'I don't believe in capitalism'. How can we put in place an international alliance with the democratic safeguards the EU lacks? How can we sustainably and equitably organise free trade as the life machines won't power themselves without fossil fuel trade? It is not enough to simply say build more wind turbines, although we need to build more wind turbines. How do we overcome the armed interests that hinder us given we can't ever outgun them? It is not enough to filter these issues through a highly specialist filter – as a poet, hell no – we need the inter-conncectdness of ideas, to make concrete absent concepts to form meaningful social economic policy from across academic disciplines – intermediacy and cross disc', spanning sciences and humanities, as activism, above all, to revert to type – What will we do?

Jow Lindsay: Pop-Up MilPo (On the Militant Poetics Conference)

It was a totally bracing event, with a sense of ephemerality, fragility, sprawl and gelatinous frondiness. One excellent thing was how tensions & disputes mostly didn't coalesce into historical re-enactment of standardised positions. Sociologically it was a bit of a total sausagefest. There were no clear plans formed, but I think many people agreed that:

(a) We should arrange sequel events. Some people also had suggestions for slightly different formats; some people felt it had better be more than once a year; some people weren't sure about the title Militant Poetics. (Personally I don't think we should get hung up on names. No name will sum everything up).

(b) Meanwhile, we should get together in small groups. In smaller groups, that meet more regularly, people can get to know each other, look out for each other, and invent and carry out practical actions and projects. Most people seemed to hope these spaces could be characterised by attentiveness, collaboration, patience, support, nourishment, tenderness and celebration, and by solidarity that subsists in acts and not only in pronouncements. We also sometimes seemed to refer to them as omnipotent ("this looks like a job for THE SMALL GROUPS!"). There seemed to be slightly different ideas about whether such groups should bring together people who are not already friends, as well as about the importance of ideological mix, of links with other organisations and groups, and of inclusivity and openness. Presumably different emphases could be pursued in parallel.

Mood and will may have shifted since the event, but that's my sense of what many of us decided on the day.

Stephen Watts: Outline of Contribution to the Militant Poetics Conference

I don’t intend the below as an offensive against other possibilities but a possible widening of them.

(i)              Pasolini as a starting point (especially cf. Keston Sutherland’s outline) but also Nanni Balestrini & others. ‘Bifo’ Berardi’s essay ‘Pasolini In Tottenham’ & recent book ‘The Uprising : On Poetry & Finance’ of texts written during & after 2011. Ok, far more complex than this & only a ‘starting point’ & needing criticism : but vital presence.

(ii)            Cecilia Vicuña : ‘Split Temple : Selected Performances Of Cecilia Vicuña’ & Kirill Med-vedev ‘It’s No Good : Poems/Essays/Actions’ (both Ugly Duckling Presse NY & other books from same press) as examples of direction specifically involving performance & action. Many other practices of poets worldwide that could be ‘woven in’.

(iii)           Poetry of David Kessel : his work as radical poet & in mental health survival as crucial, yet little known to more academic radical poetries. Howard Mingham also (see review online of latter by Richard Owens). John Rety & Torriano as long-term activisms (strong links to Parliament Square protest) also uninvolved by more academic poetries. Poems of Sharon Morris (‘Gospel Oak’ 2013) & especially ‘Parliament Hill’ in that book. 

(iv)           Webs & strata of radical (leftist) experimental European poetry, both throughout C20th & also contemporary into C21st : also please to weave more into practice here. Also the range of radical non-English language poets living (in exile/otherwise) in London & UK. This argument I didn’t have time enough to elaborate during conference.

(v)             Essential that actions/writings/theory are open & expansive, peace-energised rather than violence-dictated (at least for me). This is complex & needs elaborating, but I’d have to encapsulate that ‘tenderness’ is a vital part/definition of revolution. That we need to be open to those we don’t agree with beyond our arguments. Concern that ‘militant’ poetry/actions may preclude such vital inclusions & warmths.

(vi)           Co-translation as a vigorous & exemplary example of the practice of ‘collective author-ship’ that was much discussed during the day. Again I didn’t have time to mention this.

(vii)          Example of Jack Hirschman. I recognise some negative/doubting reaction to parts of his contribution to 2012 conference : but remind that he was the person last year who did propose a ‘militant poets cell’ (even if people may not have agreed with his premises or taken him up on his suggestion). Jack also as astonishing exemplar of poet-translator-activist. Between 1971 & 2006 he published 62 book translations of radical & worker poets from Russian, Italian, French, Greek, Albanian, Spanish, Haitian Creole & many more books since. For some reason he didn’t himself elaborate on this last year (& I didn’t have time to even mention him this year) though we’d asked him to.

Monday, 24 June 2013

William Rowe: Response to the exchange between Francesca Lisette and David Grundy

I identified at the time with what I thought was the object of Francesca’s objections – violence against women – as something to be accused of. But I don’t find that the sense of shame it produced is useful. And, having referred to shame, I want to be more precise as to the cause of this shame. Rather than involvement in sexual violence, what was I imputing to myself? A complicity, as far as I can tell, in an ambience of such violence (which gives permission for that violence).

However, as I say, I don’t find the sense of guilt useful. If revolutionary tenderness is to be practiced, this will not be the result of seeing the pointing finger of guilt, but it will come from the type of radical solidarity that the Paris Communards practiced (the Welfare State, which is under destruction, being a reduced and bureaucratized reflection of that).

So for me, revolutionary tenderness, in the complete commitment it implies, is to come out of liberty, equality and solidarity. And the not-so-useful fierceness of guilt is I think fed by the failure of the desire for equality and solidarity.

It’s important to me that Francesca pointed out the implication of rape in the statement quoted by David [which Jennifer Cooke refers to in the third point of her recent post]. Here is the shadow of rape as instrument of war. And a major part of the shock of recognizing that rape is implied is the sense that the perpetrator is enjoying it. As, for us, Ian Duncan Smith and co are enjoying causing suffering to weak and/or exploited people. When the cuts were first announced in Parliament, Tory MPs shouted More! More! More! So there is an accuracy to the slogan ‘fuck capitalism’.

‘Fuck the State and capitalism's holes’, the statement quoted by David, can mean, as Francesca said, simply doing the same to them. My bother with it (rather than the slogan form) is it can be taken as a simple mirror reversal. Revolutionary violence, for me, is not like that. As in Fanon, it is transformative of oppressed and weakened people. And secondly, as with Marx, revolutionists have to be involved in the practice of violence.

The point is that ‘Fuck capitalism’, as reversal, is I guess ok as a slogan (a slogan does not constitute a strategy) because it turns the enemy’s violence back at him. But it’s not ok as mere reversal, it does not designate the enjoyment revolutionists need. As Sean has said, struggle, in a revolutionary sense, is the only valid form of ecstasy.

Hope others will respond to this exchange.

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Selina Vuddamalay: On the Militant Poetics Conference

I came to the event having been fairly disappointed with several other seminars and conferences. The title of the event encouraged me to attend and it was not disappointing because —

(a) We all seem to have similar concerns regarding injustice and violation of human rights.

(b) There seems to be a genuine commitment of intolerance against the language, behavior and systems of global corrupt, elitist culture in all the forms it manifests itself in our neocolonialist era. This is well demonstrated in the poetry and works of so many who contributed their ideas to all present; it was varied and challenging.

(c) We can dance on Thatcher's grave, or any other dictators for that matter, but what has really changed and why not? How do we fight the corruption and greed of politics, and is the power of language alone sufficient? Just as dictionaries can become the graveyard for words, discourse and dialectical debate can easily overshadow the main agendas that truly worry us.

It was a positive event; poets and writers as legislators and activists combined, would perhaps be more constructive? 

My commitment at present is with children; may be tapping into their interests leads to many passions we are engaged with in terms of injustice and human rights. Mine is just a first small (uncertain and sometimes faltering) step towards making 'awareness', in children by exploring their imaginative and creative possibilities through a 'self-exploratory process'.  

As with some of you there are difficulties in knowing the right way, but sometimes there is no right way and it will be a reflective learning process. 

I welcome any comments on this process.

Thursday, 20 June 2013

Jennifer Cooke: On the Militant Poetics Conference

These are the things I thought the most important about the day:

1. The structure of the day, with rolling papers that moved on after ten-fifteen minute discussions meant that no one voice dominated, no one set of ideas took the permanent stage. Instead, there was a feeling that ideas were being put on the table to be turned over, touched, tested, bounced about by participants of the day. The fact we sat in a circle and could have eye contact helped too. The way the day developed built trust that each voice that spoke into the space was valued and as ideas moved on, the paper-givers tended to abandon their papers and respond instead to the developing discussion. The affective dimensions of what this format produced was very valuable, in my opinion.

2. Danny Hayward's paper was a turning point in the day, I think, because of the practical suggestions it contained in terms of action. Danny suggested that it was important for us to know each other better - know the politics of those around us beyond just a broadly left-wing anti-capitalist consensus - and that to do that, and to discuss political events as they unfold in the public sphere and how we could respond to them, we needed to meet regularly in small groups. We could then discuss politics, political actions, and our poetry and this would build strong solidarities which could then be fed back into larger meetings of us all.

3. Francesca Lisette raised for me the most important poetic point of the day. Responding to a paper which had described a need to fuck capitalism in every hole in which it has fucked us, she said she wanted no part in a revolution which used rape as a metaphor. This widened into a discussion of the use of sex and fucking more generally in poetry, especially its metaphorics. This for me is a fundamental question which has both academic and activist dimensions. A recent group of female poets - international but many of us are in the UK - has just formed in order to precisely try to think about these questions in more depth, which has been a practical outcome of conversations from the Militant Poetics day but also many conversations and frustrations stretching back a long time before. It was fantastic for me to hear this issue aired so succinctly and passionately by Fran and the subsequent conversations that I've had with other poets, particularly women, around this matter have been extremely stimulating and important.

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

David Grundy: Reply to Oakland

I'd like to apologize for any mis-representation or offence caused by the two sentences in my paper which have provoked this letter. It must have seemed a casual and unprovoked slur on the committed work that poet-activists have been doing in Oakland , and one that seems to open up a rift between groups that should be working together in solidarity, whether or not they’re on different sides of the Atlantic . These sentences, written in haste and based on vaguely-digested conversational anecdote, were clearly a mistake and shouldn’t have been included. The paper was delivered during a day of intensive discussion in which a large number of different positions were aired and debated, and it is in the spirit of that debate that it has rightly been challenged. I hope, in any case, that we can take this opportunity to learn more about what we are doing in our different locations, and find ways of working together which channel our political and rhetorical energies into joint activism.

Monday, 3 June 2013

Chen, Clover, & Spahr: Letter to UK Comrades

 this received in response to David Grundy's paper

We would be unwilling to give such tawdry and trifling material as David Grundy’s
“Practice Run” the time of day, but for the hope that there will be comrades, friends
in the UK with a more serious sense of politics; a real curiosity about what has
happened here in Oakland; and a less self-serving account of the relation between
poetry and militancy. We also hope rather urgently that it isn’t indicative of the race
politics around the “Militant Poetics” scene.

Much of Grundy’s spume escapes us. We apologize for getting lost among the drifty
sentences and Thatcher apologetics, unable to make sense of the “politicallycorrect”
or the force of rectitude in “really being a citizen.” But we must be grateful for
these cloudy moments, given what is to be got from the moments of clarity: the
rehearsal of received and banal slurs of reaction.

Let us go immediately to the moment when Grundy most evidently sells himself to
readers of the Daily Mail, complaining of “the poets who came into Occupy Oakland
advocating various forms of escalation then left black people to swim again in their
own shit once the movement had ruptured.” We will pass over the unfortunate
history of racialized fantasies white people like to have about black people and shit.
Behold instead this interesting dichotomy: poets or black people. Perhaps this
division is the rule at Cambridge; we could not claim to know. In Oakland, it is non
sequitur. There are enough black poets and poets of color that some opposed the
tactics of Occupy Oakland, some fomented them, and some did other things

The racial heterogeneity of “poets,” however, pales before the political heterogeneity
of “black people.” Smugly alluding to a 1970 Gil Scott-Heron performance about
white college activists not only erases the heavy participation of nonwhite political
actors in Occupy Oakland, it recycles an ignorant view of Oakland’s complex racial
politics in 2013 — a city riven by non-white intraracial and interracial antagonisms.
Present day Oakland is presided over by a Maoist-turned-neoliberal Asian American
mayor, and a fully multiracial city bureaucracy and police department at war with the
city’s poorest black and brown residents.

Against this Grundy, content to be a blank bearer of official ideology, resurrects the
crude fearmongering about the “outside agitator.” It is a figure with deep historical
roots in white liberal reaction to increasingly militant veterans of the civil rights
movement and to the urban race riots which spread through cities like Harlem,
Watts, and Philadelphia in the 1960s. It is a term not of description but of crowd
control. The invention of the “outside agitator” as hybrid legal/moral category, and of
the duped and docile black and brown communities that this stereotype
presupposes, has always purposed to justify state violence against unruly and
“illegitimate” political antagonists. It was repeatedly invoked by the Oakland Police
Department, city politicians, pro-police clergy, business leaders, and news media in
order to justify the violent eviction of the Occupy Oakland encampment. It is the
official lie about what happened.

Occupy Oakland’s general assemblies, hundreds and sometimes thousands of
people, voted overwhelmingly to support tactical escalation week after week. That
this could be so easily be chalked up to the machinations of a few outsiders (or in
this case, Bay Area poets — feel the power!) is particularly revealing of the dream
logic of this liberal race fantasy. The awesome, almost supernatural political
influence over non-white communities wielded by the modern day “white outside
agitator” is simply the flip side of the benevolent paternalism defining what Teju Cole
calls the “White Savior Industrial Complex.” That this fantasy is spontaneously
regurgitated by Grundy, following the noble path of left-liberal pundits like Chris
Hedges, underscores the extent to which denying the political agency and diversity
of political opinions of nonwhite people remains a kind of racial “common sense.” It is
a fantasy which has become a peculiarly vicious and effective tool of state power.

It is a strange ideology that fetishizes black militancy in legend and effaces it in
practice, sets militancy as an ideal while condemning it in the streets. The curious
consequence of such contradiction is that it authorizes poetry as the appropriate
space for white militancy — a happy outcome indeed! If that is to be the conclusion
of “militant poetics,” as a limit of struggle, we hope you will keep it as far away from
us as possible; we have more pressing things to do than to discover at windy length
that our poetic practice was the best possible politics all along.

But we would be surprised if this is generally held to be the case. We have great
respect for many of the UK poets. We would assume that they would wish to
renounce such dire and derelict positions publicly, lest the title of “militant” be
emptied of whatever honor it retains.

Chris Chen, Joshua Clover, Juliana Spahr

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Danny Hayward

Would it be useful to organise ourselves? In what way? e.g. form a faction; produce agitprop material; create a website; produce collective statements for website, perhaps weekly.

1.  The question demands that we think about what organization means for radical politics under present conditions. It also demands that with think about what other organizations we relate ourselves to. 

2.  Presently there is no existing revolutionary structure in the UK within which artists could form themselves as a faction. There is no mass organization whose aims and objectives could guide the political activity of cultural producers or that could provide for them a politically sympathetic audience.

3. Wherever a mass organization structured around workers' material interests reaches a certain size, it is compelled to become a cultural, as well as a strictly “economic”, institution. As an intelligent historian wrote of the early period of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, “The greater the masses of workers that joined the party, the less the party could afford to be content with their merely political and scientific enlightenment, that is, with a vulgarization of the theory of surplus value and the theory of evolution.”

4. Since the adoption by the SPD leadership of a militaristic stance within the German Reichstag, the arrogation by the German state of the various social services discharged by the revolutionary party, and the failure of the Spartakus insurrection, no revolutionary party in Europe has attempted at a wide scale to provide for the “exterior” or material needs of its membership. As revolutionary mass organizations became institutions organized principally around ideas, the requirement to codify, to integrate, and to dogmatize their programmes grew more and more pressing. As their jurisdiction was restricted to the interior lives of their members, revolutionary parties come to resemble state churches.

5.  In the twentieth century avant-gardism has understood itself as the scourge of the vulgarized and barely credible dogmas of the mainstream of radical politics. By scourging dogma, avant-gardism mimics the ideological activity of a mass revolutionary organization still undivested of its original principle of unity in the material co-ordination of human needs.

6.  At the same time, avant-gardism misprizes the forces active in determining the relationship between the “interior” (intellectual) and “exterior” (material) needs. Wherever avant-gardism misprizes these forces and takes up arms against dogma, it conceals the conditions in which dogma is capable of being overcome. The division between “interior” and “exterior” needs is conflated with the divisions between mind and life, speaker and audience; on the fault line between speaker and audience, there opens an abyss into which can be thrown unending quantities of “non-dogmatic”, “critical”, “autonomous”, or even “linguistically innovative” or “post avant” writing. At the bottom of the abyss you can see the White House.

7. There is a basic continuity between the increasing importance in revolutionary theory of the “essential” doctrines of Marxism, on the one hand, and the real transformation of class relations to the detriment of the propertyless, on the other. As the global proletariat is deprived of the means to order - or even meaningfully to regulate - its own conditions of life, its theoretical representatives become increasingly concerned to sophisticate the categories in which its “essence” is expressed. With each new exaction placed upon the proletariat by capital, the exact definition of the proletarian “essence” undergoes a new upturn in significance.           

8. By attempting to turn outwards too quickly, revolutionary poetry - or any other species of avant-gardism - overlooks the basis of revolutionary inwardness (its stewardship of a dogma) in the external development of class relations. In these conditions, the replacement of the dialectic between material needs and intellectual life with the flatly straightforward opposition between ideas and audience, in which ideas are only distinguishable on the basis of whether they are doctrinal or apostate, jaundiced or deranged - this replacement does not permit a supersession of existing limitations but only pushes them outwards into an empty auditorium. The first practical suggestion I would make is that we talk more concertedly about finding the resources to formalize among ourselves a newly intensive process of association, a much more regular process of small group affiliation, of collective critical research into new developments in shared languages whose potential to be bent out of shape or ground into fragments is perhaps the only general basis for our intimacy. Our friendships have to be staked on this; our larger organizational commitments may yet be renewed by it.

9. Unlike the categories of political economy, poetry will never be essential to a correct definition of capitalist society. In this sense, it will never need to exist - but it is exactly in this sense that it has something to contribute, because it is only by an internalized conflict between dogma and that which dogma defines as inessential, only in the contusion of dogma, rather than in its concealment, that a revolutionary politics - truly a politics, rather than a geometry, or another species of theoretical fatalism - might begin to revive itself.   

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Anon: Some notes on the counter-EDL demonstration 27 May 2013

1. The disproportion between EDL and anti-fascist demonstrators was sharp and markedly depressing. It seemed patent to everyone to whom I spoke that there was very little for anti-fascists to do except to shuffle into position and to play the role of demonstrators. Actual resistance of any kind was out of the question.

2. Once they’d been released from the police pen (itself apparently a tactical decision by the cops, who were keen not to create too much tension on a Bank Holiday in the city centre), the EDL members were left to scatter into pubs or to march around Westminster in small groups. The police did very little to pursue them or even to keep them under close surveillance. Groups of 60 EDL, moving at a leisurely crawl, were usually accompanied by two or three police.

3. EDL members are conscious of the fact that they possess an exoteric and an esoteric discourse. In public they defer slavishly to what they assume to be “liberal” ideas. Like the liberal state with its checks and balances, they want to “protect” society against “fundamentalism”; like the National Trust, they want to “safeguard” English values; like the judiciary, they want to ensure that the “rule of law” isn’t bent out of shape by the decadent inattention of political elites and the fantastical moral scruples of “the left.”

4. In private, some attendees of EDL demos find it difficult to align their public commitments and their political activities. Asked how they can justify the slogan ‘Muslim violence off our streets’ in terms of a general commitment to the rule of law, they disclaim responsibility for the slogan.

5. The anxiety is connected to a more fundamental desire to shield their positions from the accusation of racism. EDL demonstrators have black friends, admire “the” Sikh community, or are themselves “mixed race”. The obvious tendency of the line of argument is to identify the concept “racist” with the person of the “white supremacist”.

6. The argument that says that this indicates a step change towards a “new” far right, the sophistication of obsolete racial “biologism” into cutting edge “culturalism”, is barren, for at least two reasons. Firstly, “racism” does not evolve like electronics commodities in a marketing schedule. The EDL is not Racism 4 and consumers will not be attracted by its new gyroscope. Secondly, the argument implies a certain measure of triumphalism, as if the recrudescence of racist street movements is a blessing in disguise, a great leap forwards only masquerading as a small step back. The background assumption is as follows. “Antiquated” racial supremacism that identifies racial superiority in the degree of cranial curvature, or which fishes it out of a “gene pool”, is superseded by a modern racism which at least has the decency to accept that the “people” who exist beneath their “identities” are capable of being retrieved for a well-integrated, stable, and “value”-rich polity. But the idea that beneath all of the clutter of “identities”, “beliefs”, “values” and “cultural dispositions” belonging to a person there lies a neutral and politically acceptable core is not automatically more humane than the “old” idea that a person is fixedly identifiable with his or her genetic inheritance, because it legitimates an endlessly more violent and imperiously intrusive stance on the part of those who take themselves to be competent to define what it is that we have at our “core” and who see in it the reflected image of their own preferences and interests. It makes no difference whether these people are on the “far right” or stranded at sea in the middle of the “centre left”.   

7. Liberals are also accommodating to the EDL’s account of class. In television debates featuring EDL leader “Tommy Robison”, host and guest engage in a kind of barter of discursive favours, in which Robinson permits himself to be ridiculed and intellectually subordinated by his patrician host on account of his accent, solecisms, malapropisms, lapses of memory, and habit of self-contradiction in exchange for a tacit commitment on the part of the host not to question the claim that, precisely insofar as he fails to speak coherently, Robinson is able to “represent working class people”. By respectively constructing and tacitly affirming this account of “class”, derisively identified with speech habits, guest and host both get what they want, since while the host enjoys the reaffirmation of the innate superiority of his powers of expression and ratiocination, the guest is permitted to claim a spurious representative authority whose subordinate role is not painful but is in fact exactly what he wanted all along. The reassuring “triumph” of the liberal host in this situation is basically akin to the “triumph” of the consumer removing her comestible from the tray of the vending machine.

8. Just as the inadvertent triumphalism of the soft sociology of the “new far right” palliates the EDL’s racism, the slogan “racist scum” helps to confirm the organization's account of class. Not only does it bring unavoidably into mind the image of the bourgeois “street cleaners” who acted out their own purposelessness by pretending in August 2011 to clean up already clean streets; more generally it fixes a redundant adjective to what already ought to be a dirty word, raising into peripheral view the connotation that the EDL are something in addition to being racists. For the EDL this will sound like a resounding affirmation of their own delusional self-identification as representatives of “the” working class persecuted by ignorant middle class “do-gooders” or “liberals”.

9. In arguments concerning standards of sanitation, the ultimate arbiter will always be the liberal state. Its expertise in these matters is undisputed.

10. Unlike in previous EDL street demonstrations, the participants in central London on Monday were largely though by no means exclusively young. Youthful white English “patriots” whose own conception of national solidarity is conditioned by the propaganda and employment prospects offered by the British Armed Forces will in many cases have been participating in EDL street action for the first time. That the EDL presence was so unchecked either by anti-fascists or by the police means among other things that these new attendees will have enjoyed their day out. This will be a matter of jubilation for the racist ideologues at the head of the organization who can now anticipate future opportunities to influence these peripheral members and to organize them into cadres.

11. Now that the old anti-fascist front organizations are disintegrating (along with the parties for which they acted as a front), new responsibilities emerge for anyone interested in participating in anti-racist street actions. The sense of unpreparedness yesterday among the friends and comrades who turned up in central London was palpable and painfully dismaying; and yet it also presages an opportunity to assert publicly with a new and striking clarity a better account of capital and race than the account which resorts instantly to obfuscatory slogans about Nazism, and which rules out also the blockheaded liberal argument that the “new” racism is an index of social progress. There is work to be done here, and gains to be made, against the intensifying brutality of the “national discourse” and the policy outcomes – the racist violence – in which that discourse inevitably terminates. Petrified silence would be the most clamorous act of submission.   

also published today on Mute