I’ve been following a familiar debate about police violence around the round of student demonstrations in the UK. Mark Fisher has got himself into a little hot-water with his fellow leftists after tweeting that police attacks on student demonstrators were “a good thing, strategically,” a position that has drawn some ire. The most pointed critique I read was from Ads w/out Products titled “fuck(t)wittery.” Ads writes, “Anyone who advocates, you know, people getting run over by police horses in the service of a cause, however just, doesn’t need to be listened to. This ain’t the Terminator, version 1 2 or 3. Spend some time at an occupation, and you’ll see that ’strategic victories’ are achievable without weird Accelerationist ideas.”
First of all, it’s definitely a stretch to say Fisher “advocates” police violence, he certainly never encouraged officers to beat students. I would say he probably “advocates” the police’s immediate surrender to the glorious student revolutionaries, unfortunately Mark Fisher has seemingly little-to-no control over any police department. This is what’s silly about the whole argument: riot cops don’t need the advice of a Marxist professor to attacked demonstrators. The tactics that resulted in police aggression are either strategic or not, and looking at the momentum these students have built, I’m going to have to agree with Fisher and say they have been. A blanket condemnation of tactics that lead to police confrontation would be silly and blind, and I don’t think that’s what Ads is saying. Which means Fisher is being critiqued for making the uncouth connection between success and violence, for thinking it out loud.
The intermediate value theorem states that a line connecting two points passes through every one between them. Anyone who thinks that, between the origin (current material conditions) and the goals of a revolutionary left, there is not a point of open state violence is either naive, delusional, or both. There isn’t a liberal capitalist democracy in the world that wouldn’t rather not beat its children in the street, not because they care a bit about us, but because that sort of violence is not supposed to happen here. Beating protesters is for authoritarian regimes teetering on the edge of historical irrelevance, not for nations where history has already ended. The open use of police violence, especially against school kids, lays bare the lines of antagonism, it reveals an exteriority on the ground that’s always hard to be sure of otherwise. If they’re hitting you with sticks, it means they’re worried. If they’re worried, it means you’re doing your job well. Sure, the police’s collective surrender would be a better sign, but I don’t think today you get to one without the other.
I don’t know a committed leftist who hasn’t looked at a police line and, deep down somewhere we don’t all like to talk about, hoped it would charge. Not because of some macho desire to find a representative of capital and the state to punch in the face, but simply because it would mean you’re worth beating. Babysitter cops are usually far more demoralizing than aggressive ones, and they know it. Without confrontation, marches become pageants to the state’s security and restraint, complete with smiling police escorts. There’s nothing worse than feeling planned for, internal to the structures you protest. State violence is a sign of the struggle’s escalation, and is thereby validating.
When activists render the state’s deliberative mask unwearable, they move closer to open conflict and the possibility of bigger victories. As the comrades at the UCs have put it, “Behind every fee increase, a line of riot cops.” The connection between tuition increases and police batons already exists, and it unfortunately falls on the brave to make that relationship present in order to see it fractured. It isn’t Accelerationist to recognize this is where we are now, and as Greg Graffin might say: “It’s a dangerous stage/But the show must go on.”
Which isn’t to say anyone has to or ought to or can stand still and take it. One way or another, a one-sided fight doesn’t last long. When the reality is get knocked out or get shields and barricades, I’m all for the latter. Especially if they’re those Italian book-shields, the design for which really ought be online somewhere…
This is what’s silly about the whole argument: riot cops don’t need the advice of a Marxist professor to attacked demonstrators. The tactics that resulted in police aggression are either strategic or not, and looking at the momentum these students have built, I’m going to have to agree with Fisher and say they have been
No, they don’t. What they need is the performative advice of lots and lots of very smart students who, yesterday, figured out how to beat the kettle, led the cops on a chase from Buckingham Palace to St. Pauls and then got back to their computers and sent out press releases titled “RIP: The Kettle.” Probably a million pounds in consultants’ advice went down the drain yesterday. The Metropolitan Police are shitting themselves in a way that they definitely weren’t about the bad press over the horse charge.
Mark’s the laugh of the left side of the town right now for saying this. He’s a million years behind the current thinking…. I don’t know where you are / live but if you’re over here, come down to an occupation and see. Honestly, anyone who would be a left theorist who is not watching what they do in the occupation rooms is out of the game from now forward. Not out of radical chic, not at all, but because they’ve missed the clearest and best lived theorization of where we’re headed in (at least) forty years.
No One-Sided Fight Lasts Long
Yeah, see, you’re not sure what you mean by that, and thus I am completely confused because of that about what you’re trying to say. The students understand the dynamics at play. You should come down and listen if you’re here.
Let me see if I can clear up a bit of that confusion.
First, I’m from and live in the SF Bay Area, so the “Have you heard about this new student occupation thing?!” point is a bit hilarious. I’ve been an occupationist since the only English versions of The Coming Insurrection were stapled and xeroxed. The most “would-be left theorist” thing I’ve ever done is co-present a paper about student occupations at a conference largely about student occupations in May. No reason you should know any of the work I’ve done, but you’re preaching to the acolytes on that one.
However, I don’t know why you would draw a line between occupations and police violence. Occupations are barricades of one kind or another, as Laurie Penny tweeted today: “#UCLOccupation – Under threat head down now with people, goodwill D-Locks etc.. to secure premises against eviction.” Like I said, fuck yeah barricades, occupy everything, but unless you live in the Mid-West and all your buildings are connected by tunnels, the streets still matter. Look to Italy where they have 10-20 times as many schools under occupation and are still battling police. (My Italian buddy Paolo posted this video on FB this morning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=960w_PbSkac) It’s one thing to pick sides in a fight, it’s another entirely to say the fight itself is a bad thing.
What I meant with the second title was that students with either lose or defend themselves quickly. Clearly at this point it looks like the second. Which is awesome. Last academic year at Berkeley, the occupationists made the point that the students who got beat were the ones outside the occupation, it’s only safe with the cops locked out. And if police attacks determine/signify this escalation, then we’re better off for them. Would it have been clearer if I had said: “No One-Sided Fight Lasts Long AS SUCH?”
But the bigger issue is that your post was in bad faith. I’m generally a fan of your blog, and I’ve especially enjoyed reading about you getting inspired and involved in the last few weeks, but that was a cheap shot. You took a three-way conversation and showed one side out of context, and without his tweet that clarifies what I took him to mean: “everything’s looking as good as it could atm. Mainstream politics has been shaped by neoliberalism for 20+ years.” The second part of that wasn’t a non-sequitur, the existence of open and present antagonism is a victory (as it was, for example, in Seattle) as is no one getting killed or hurt too badly. Once can (and ought!) say both, as Mark did. The worst thing the police do isn’t attack, it’s exist. If the goal were to end subjective police violence, everyone could stay home and win immediately.
But of course that’s not what you mean, because it would be in very bad faith to assume you, comrade, are an ass who desires the sabotage of the student movement.
I love it when the teachers get involved.
really? surely the clever kids in the occupation also know a) reputations can’t be tarnished on the basis of tweets, and, more importantly, b) that mark’s and pennyred’s positions, taken on their own and out of real-time, aren’t mutually exclusive- that strategic thinking about i.e. the relationship between media, police and popular (non-student) opinion, and fellow feeling for those on the frontline, can be thought and acted on together. in fact, it’s the best way. let’s not waste time on this. get down to the occupations if you can and experience the process in all its authentic, messy glory. at the same time, any and all strategic insights via the array of partial/flawed but so far damn effective social media are welcome as well.
Couldn’t agree more. And if I weren’t in California, I wouldn’t be wasting time quibbling about such things. But alas, a big ole country, an ocean, and a pile of grad school applications stand between me and the barricades, so I have to content myself with somewhat petty sideline observations.
First, I’m from and live in the SF Bay Area, so the “Have you heard about this new student occupation thing?!” point is a bit hilarious.
Sorry to say it this way, but, um, what did yours do? Ours might (might! slim but real chance) bring down a government. We’ll see what happens next week. Might not of course, the odds are against. But there were issues with how the California occupations were run that are being handled a helluva a lot better here. Just saying.
the only English versions of The Coming Insurrection were stapled and xeroxed.
well yeah I had one of those too. It’s a shit book, no? Adolescent in a way that my students understand immediately. I’m encouraging them to write one of their own, a better one because they are smarter than that.
<Laurie Penny tweeted today: “#UCLOccupation – Under threat head down now with people, goodwill D-Locks etc.. to secure premises against eviction.”
Yep LP retweeted a hacked tweet. She’s doing a good job in some ways, but mostly it’s breathless self-propagandising. Students I know are a lot more modest because their eyes on on other things than self-promotion.
it’s another entirely to say the fight itself is a bad thing
Jesus I most certainly didn’t say that. I said that Mark Fisher, in his accelerationist mode, claimed that police horse charges are a good thing. That’s fucking insane, and honestly if he thinks so he should throw himself under a horse. There’s a precedent in this country for that sort of thing.
And if police attacks determine/signify this escalation, then we’re better off for them
Agreed.
But the bigger issue is that your post was in bad faith. I’m generally a fan of your blog, and I’ve especially enjoyed reading about you getting inspired and involved in the last few weeks, but that was a cheap shot
Nope. I’m tired, have been tired for a long time, about Mark’s vaguely Leninist line about this stuff, all of this stuff. We’re fighting to preserve universities, while he fantasizes about the reestablishment of society after a period of rubble and robots. It’s idiotic, this stuff he says. It’s not bad faith at all – I read his stuff, I see his line on things, and I disagree. You can call me a gray vampire or a pink moth or a red zombie or whatever now and, you know, I just won’t care.
The second part of that wasn’t a non-sequitur, the existence of open and present antagonism is a victory (as it was, for example, in Seattle
Yep antagonism is great. Horses charging people is not. You could torture me and I’d never say anything different. See, my issue with this stuff is about a stupid and ultimately really destructive vanguardism that takes the “breaking a few eggs line.” I am not advocating never risking breaking eggs, but I will never, ever, call it a victory when eggs are broken. There’s a really fucking huge issue here and it has tons to do with the future of the left. My students are getting it right, and so yep I’m a bit chippy about it now.
as is no one getting killed or hurt too badly
Yes well that came a bit late didn’t it? Not sure it makes sense given the overall argument.
The worst thing the police do isn’t attack, it’s exist.
I think that’s silly. And backs us into the basic difference between the UK and California occupations. I’m happy with having a police force… and universities. Just not when the one uses horses to charge children and not when the other effectively isn’t state funded any more.
But of course that’s not what you mean, because it would be in very bad faith to assume you, comrade, are an ass who desires the sabotage of the student movement.
Oh dear. Ask my students.
I love it when the teachers get involved.
Again, ask my students. I spent the evening prepping one of them for an appearance on Newsnight (cancelled unfortunately) and helping them write press releases.
vc,
a) reputations can’t be tarnished on the basis of tweets
huh? Really? the world is reading their tweets and the tweets matter. Someone (tory kids? the government? who the fuck knows) hacked their twitter account last night and, yeah, it’s very worrysome when tweet reputations are at stake.
Back to you:
a pile of grad school applications
Well good luck with those. I love it when teachers get involved. Or do you promise to permanently recuse yourself from this sort of thing once, and if, your in the business like me?
I am fucking exhausted. Sure there’s other things to say but I’ll say them tomorrow.
Whoops. I misread:
And if police attacks determine/signify this escalation, then we’re better off for them.
I said agreed, because I’m tired. I don’t agree with this at all. I’d rather no one gets run over by a horse, even if sure I agree that part of this involves risking that. But I’d never celebrate it, as Mark clearly did.
quick question: why do you think Mark doesn’t allow comments on his blog? I do. I saw your response in fact that way. I am truly interested in talking things thought with those who disagree with me. I am here after all. But do you think Mark’s refusal to allow comments – and in fact his explicit disavowal at time of the necessity of dealing with those who disagree – might be… dunno… politically complicated?
I don’t want to go line-by-line again because I think we’ve reached the point where such iterations become absurd. Clearly the UK occupations are going stronger than they ever did in CA, no argument here. Awesome, keep up the great work folks. And I’ve been a fan of Laurie Penny’s for a while now, not just because I think her analysis correctly explains why this is about far more than the preservation or restoration of the university, but mostly because she’s a better writer than the two of us put together. Don’t be a hater. The more opportunities she gets to write and the more people who read her work, the better off we all are. Oh, and adolescence seems to be the best weapon y’all have got, so even though I’m no Tiqquniste, I wouldn’t bash it.
But your argument still comes down to the same thing. In the “You can’t make a revolution w/out breaking eggs” statement, who now is the subject? Someone on the ground correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s no Party steering this thing. You can’t accuse someone of vanguardism without a vanguard, it seems like what you’re still complaining about is vanguardishism. Which is silly. In the absence (and impossibility) of anything resembling an active communist party, I’m amazed that people still go around calling others Leninists like that.
And correct me if I’m wrong interpreting your argument here: To win, students are currently coming and will continue to come into violent conflict with police officers. But if any of those conflicts actually lead to injuries (are there other kinds?), then no one should celebrate it. Bummer. What’s wrong with enjoying giving at least as good as you get and being able to go do it again the next day? Revolutions don’t run on sorrow and the vaguely theological “do what must be done and beg for forgiveness” routine is far too dour.
And on the quick question: Dunno, I’ve never met the dude. It’s certainly possible, but he saw this post on Twitter, so it’s probably a case of different new media strokes and such. Personally I’ve got a bigger issue with the black background on his blog and the truncated rss previews, but that’s a different story.
But more interestingly, your role in what’s been going on. Do you see anything “politically complicated” in someone who holds a position of authority, with arguably a different set of interests than the students, doing (what sounds like primarily) media work? Even (especially?) in an advisory role?
Which is silly. In the absence (and impossibility) of anything resembling an active communist party, I’m amazed that people still go around calling others Leninists like that.
I don’t really use that word all that often, no. But in this case I think we’re dealing with a feature deeply resident in certain theoretical positions. Just to cite a more famous example: it’s getting increasingly difficult to sort the political pragmatism out of the end time glee in Zizek’s work. I consistently find the same problem in MF’s stuff.
But more interestingly, your role in what’s been going on. Do you see anything “politically complicated” in someone who holds a position of authority,
Yes.
with arguably a different set of interests than the students
Only to a very slight degree from what I can tell. Of course the question of what constitutes their “set of interests” is complicated as well. But in general: they want their university to be free to attend. I want my university to be free to attend.
Even (especially?) in an advisory role?
I only do what they ask me to do, talk to them when they ask me to talk to them. Of course I see what you mean about the question of an advisory vs. active role, but I think the danger would be more with the latter. They’ve done a good job to my eyes of keeping this a student movement, as I’m sure there are lots of non-students walking around with factional issues to advance who would love to steer things away from the central issues at hand.