In Britain, anyway, the Stalinist Communist Party of Great Britain was always identifiable by its orientation to middle class activism, like consumer protests, environmentalism, CND and so on. I don't say this as a slur. It was their intended policy, based on the analysis that the middle classes were progressive small traders as opposed to the reactionary monopolies. Later, Marxism Today's orientation to identity politics and culture rather confirmed that preoccupation. (Anyone who knows the émigré Turkish left in Britain, too, will not be taken in by the handlebar moustaches and trade union banners, either. It's greatest social base is amongst intelligentsia and small business.)
>
>Secondly any leftist with any sort of clue in Britain should
>be sensible enough to get through the media sterotype of
>'mindless violence' or more obscurely 'hystrionic spasm'.
Indeed, I am not interested in condemning the 'violence'. The demonstration was, as I thought I had made clear, not very violent at all. The temper tantrum at McDonalds was only a little more boisterous than the franchise's own children's parties (which are at least more entertaining).
>Thirdly the 'middle class' protesters were the ones specificlly
>heading to Traflagar square to link up with the 'working class'
>May Day march (and in particular the Dagenham workers).
Well, the 'trade union' march I saw was a handful of rather conservative union bureaucrats from the Longbridge plant, who were more afraid of the protesters than the police. It would be interesting if the meeting had been allowed to go ahead since most of the demonstrators presumably would welcome the closure of Birmingham's car plant, as, for example, environmentalist George Monbiot did in his newspaper column.
A question: do you welcome the closure? Or do you want to see more cars built in Britain?
>Fourthly the very obvious point to be made is that the police
>choose to offer McDonalds as a handy sacrifice to justify
>the intervention of the riot police
Your instinct that the police left the 'rioters' alone is right. But not that this was the prelude to heavy-handed tactics. The police operation was utterly diffident and cautious towards the rioters throughout. Presumably they were reluctant to break heads in case some future viscount was injured.
>Fifthly I'm not sure the 'middle class' label is worth responding
>to
then by all means, don't.
>The only people we know about in terms of
>'class background' were those who were arrested. Most of
>these were working class with a few notable exceptions
>like the 17 year old Eton pupil (a very posh English school).
But such characters were far from being out of place. The character of the event was plainly middle class, from the drippy-hippy sandpits and flowers right down to the theatre workshop protests and tie-dies.
>
>Anyway the real issue for the left it how it relates
>to the mass movement against 'globalisation' that MayDay
>was part of.
'Mass movement'? Well, I guess it's all relative.
>As far as I can see the only people capable
>of doing so are the anarchists - certainly at the
>MayDay conference before the march we were the only political
>tendancy there that received any respect from the mass
>of particapants.
Doubtless, they recognised something of themselves in you.
-- James Heartfield
Great Expectations: the creative industries in the New Economy is available from Design Agenda, 4.27 The Beaux Arts Building, 10-18 Manor Gardens, London, N7 6JT Price 7.50 GBP + 1GBP p&p