Violence – Essays from AntiClockWise Issue 7

 

Fear Is The Key (Editorial comment, 1989)

I am afraid of violence. I don’t particularly relish the prospect of getting my head kicked in, whether by cops, fascists or people who happen to support another football team. Violence undoubtedly goes in a vicious circle, and there is enough suffering in the world as it is. And yet, there is a thrill in aggressive confrontation, whether in attacking property or in riot situations. Violence gets the adrenalin going, rather like sex, for some people … a combination of excitement, nerves and danger.

Personally, I tend to define violence as an act of aggression against living things. The media brands groups which believe in direct action, such as the ALF, in the same category as groups, such as the IRA, which accept killing as part of their strategy of opposition: this is to discredit the former and discourage others from carrying out similar actions for fear of being labelled “terrorists”.

The worst violence comes from governments, which despite moves to global capitalism and ‘democracy’ have the capacity and occasionally the inclination, as in China, to unleash their power on their own people, as well as other nations, or just use the fear of violence to maintain order. However, in western countries more subtle techniques of keeping control are deemed to be more effective, although the police are an option kept open for the use of violence on groups / individuals who test the chains holding us too much.

Within our competitive, materialist society, with apparent improved standards of living, the majority of violence is inflicted on us by our fellow citizens in assaults, murder, rape etc. This is as big a physical oppression, especially for women, as state control within our society.

The question of the use of violence within opposition to the state is vital. The state admires non-violence in its opponents as it is not seen as much of a threat to their power and needs fewer resources to counter it. In the unlikely event of mass non-violent demonstrations in this country, reform would turn the tide. At best, a choice of government would be offered, its abolition would not. In Eastern Europe, the revolutions have overthrown tyranny, only to have the awesome prospect of becoming capitalist satellites.

Most people would agree that the aim of the revolutionary project would include an end to people hurting each other. Random violence inflicted by some groups in the name of the people is counter-revolutionary as it alienates ordinary people even more by using them as pawns in a power game, and causes more oppressive legislation that affects everyone. Ordinary people are usually the victims of vanguardist terrorism.

However, in a radical opposition, situations may arise where the necessity to use violence as self defence against the enemies of the movement may be unavoidable if there is not to be surrender or annihilation. Attacks on property associated with capitalism can be a justifiable tactic of class struggle politics, i.e. economic sabotage, backed by radical propaganda via texts, posters, pirate radio etc. The need to overcome the fear of direct action is an immediate necessity; the principles of a Democratic nation are not worth defending.

Down with capitalist war, Down with capitalist peace!

Against Humans Hurting Humans by Stefan Szczelkun (December 1989)

In my life I’ve always associated institutionalised and cultural patterns of violence with a fascist attitude. This is not a question of ideology but more relates to my early traumatic discovery of the Holocaust. I now know communists and all political shades can commit unbelievable atrocities, but, being an anarchist, the early association still sticks.

The use of violent imagery in a casual way in progressive publications (Smile, AntiClockWise, The Fred etc.) makes me fearful. A cultural climate in which violent imagery becomes uncritically acceptable seems to lead to the possibility of the acceptance of explicit violence within society, within Europe.

However, violence is a lure, it is alluring. People who are angry are often attractive as they are more alive and in touch with reality – they haven’t gone under. Clearly there is something going on behind this resurgence of sadistic imagery and the need to consume it.

What is violence? Or the urge to be violent? At base, it is an expression of anger, the frustration of our will. Anger needs a target – “Ohhh … I could kill him!” Anger needs to be discharged accompanied by violent, but not necessarily damaging, physical movements and shouting. When we are young, this is called a tantrum. If our tantrums are stopped by adults, the anger is repressed and builds up in us. This repression leads to confusion and an often irrational shifting of the target.

If the tantrums are stopped with actual physical or psychological violence, we have a tendency to replay this violence when we get angry. Most of us have experienced this cycle of repression as young people.

The replay of this violence as adults makes everyone involved (victims, relatives, onlookers etc.) very frightened. Fear is discharged by shaking (most noticeable after a fight or car crash) or laughter. This process is also taboo and also leads to a cycle of repression and re-enactment. Direct or indirect experience of violence associated with sex will be even more confusing. Images of violence may then later trigger off a sexual thrill or vice versa. All of us have experienced this on some level.

OK, this is, in short, the most plausible explanation of violence that I can think of. We are not ‘born violent’, nor are men ‘inherently violent’. There is no reason to accept these old reactionary assumptions when we have overwhelming evidence of how violence derives from our histories.

I think that these violent images that we desire are part of an intuitive tendency on our part to resolve the mess of violence, anger and fear within us, to express it, to have done with it. This necessitates actual physiological processes to heal the emotional hurt within our bodies. It’s not just a process of thinking, but of real emotions. It is probably the most urgent we have if humans are to evolve, rather than disappear down the cosmic plughole.

In our society, the fear of emotion itself tends to make us all voyeurs to these basic human functions or do them in secret. This is especially so for men.

Violent imagery does go so far to make explicit the level of hurt we all experience from oppression. Society tends to hide its violence behind a façade of nice and civilised reasonableness. We needs something which acknowledges what we have experienced and how we feel.

Violent imagery, stories and rants often tread a fine line. Do they express a reality that is hidden? Do they ridicule our fear of violence and allow us to laugh? Do they allow us to experience passionate feelings which would otherwise be locked away within us? Do they ultimately lead to the end of humans harming humans?

OR do they devalue human life, drive us further into our shells of fear and institutionalise and glamorise violence?

We are all dying to rid ourselves of our burden of anger and fear. It’s choked us up for too long. And it may take more courage than it takes to ‘go to war’.

We need to pull out these roots of fascism before it has the chance to flower again.

Terrorism (Taken from Bigger Cages, Longer Chains by Larry Law)

All governments are based on violence and force – from their nuclear missiles to the cop on the corner. They are armed to the teeth, some with enough weaponry to destroy life on earth many times over. When it comes to the calculated slaughter of innocent people, no-one comes near to the records set by governments. Yet, at the first sign of retaliation on the part of the victims, at the first Molotov thrown, at the first bullet fired back, the state screams “Terrorists”.

“Terrorism” is a word which applies to a particular form of action. However, it is in the interests of the state to apply this term to any form of armed resistance and many actions of direct action. With sublime hypocrisy, governments – the most violent and heavily armed organisations on earth – always applaud non-violence in their opponents.

Terrorism is the violent disruption of daily life designed to destabilise society, create panic and bring about a situation where the terrorists themselves can replace the existing ruling class with themselves. It almost invariably takes the form of placing bombs in public places, such as railway or bus stations, bars, airports or busy streets. It is a method employed by authoritarian groups of the left and right who reveal their contempt for ordinary people by using these people as pawns in their struggle for power.

Terrorist organisations are would-be governments. Their bombs come in cars and bags because they don’t have an air force. Like all governments they claim to act in the interests of the people, at the same time as they murder them.

Because such terrorism realy does threaten ordinary people with random death or maiming, the government can readily cast itself in the role of public protector. Terrorism plays into the hands of the state. Random bombings in Italy a few years ago led to the rounding up of leftists and anarchists, and the disruption of the state’s opposition. It later transpired that the bombs had been planted by fascists. One day the British public may learn the truth behind the Birmingham pub bombings, which was exactly the kind of meaningless massacre that would permit the introduction of the draconian Anti-Terrorism Act on a wave of public anger and confusion.

Terrorism – which is counter-revolutionary – should not be confused with guerrilla actions which arise from popular resistance movements. Such actions are not random, but precisely targeted against members of the ruling class or the physical structure of capitalism. Recent examples include actions of animal rights activists against animal exploiters, and the arsom attacks on police and company property during the miners and Wapping strikes. These groups arise from within the movement itself, they do not seek to become an elite or vanguard and, after the action, melt back into the movement. They perform the task of the militant. In any movement not everyone has the same degree of foresight, inspiration or courage. The militant demonstrates by example what is possible. Not by creating an elite unit which operates on behalf of the people, but by saying and doing things that can be done by everyone. In any situation, the militant works to push the revolutionary project just one step further. Even when all the ingredients for a riot are present, it still needs someone to throw the first stone.

We cannot leave this topic without returning to the biggest terrorists of them all – governments. Governments hold each other’s civilian populations hostage. With modern long range weapons it is not even necessary to hold the hostages in physical captivity. But the message of terrorism is the same everywhere – if you cross us, the innocent will suffer. All states are terrorists. We are all hostages.

Jesus Christ, a Superstar (A rant from AntiClockWise Issue 4)

Superstars come in many shapes and forms – politicians, sports people, actors, pop stars, criminals, artists etc. The thing that unites them is that they are created by a media that thrives on the best, the most powerful and the most notorious people. They are only able to do this because the society we live in needs heroes, demands superstars and requires some distraction from the poverty of the ordinary person’s everyday life.

The famous reduce the rest of us to the masses – to step out of the crowd you have to be different, a celebrity. What makes those who achieve fame so special? Largely, it is the coincidence of a demand for celebrities and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of people with a desire to be special, coupled with greed and gross ego-centricity, which just reflects the hierarchical competitiveness of society.

Celebrities detract from the real world (whatever that is) i.e. they are a social control to keep our minds on something harmless and give something harmless to aim for. For instance, the big break in the pop business keeps thousand s of young people slogging away or thinking they could have the next X Factor. Fame is indeed the spur.

Of course, the famous are in turn abused by the faceless capitalists who encouraged their creation so that they can be used to advertise commodities, while acting as a safety valve for the preservation of the status quo. Rebellion can quite easily be turned into marketable ideology with its own heroes.

The classification of humans on the basis of ‘good looks’ allows oppression in its commodity formats to reach deeper into our lives than ever before. It instils hierarchies of beauty; beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the eye of the creator of celebrities.

There may be 10,000 people dead in an earthquake somewhere, but the latest antics of Jason Donovan [1989!] receive the media and most people’s attention. The desperation with which society creates superstars and establishes images is staggering, but totally typical of spectacular society.

Those who have achieved fame have always shit on others to get it, by clambering over the corpse of humanity … politicians by the graft of party workers and back stabbing; military leaders by massacring civilians, royals by oppression and imperialism, pop stars by killing music etc.

The worst part of this is that media stars create roles and stereotypes which we are supposed to model ourselves on – of course, there is always a choice to give an illusion of democracy (it takes all sorts to make a world): royalists, soap opera viewers and pop stars creating the intellectual abyss of youth cults. It all says that we should follow our selected hero and not our own individual creative ideas. Role leaders speak for the group they represent so that fashion is solidified and individuality is totally stifled or ridiculed.

Even the ‘revolutionary’ left and right wing groups have their gurus e.g. Tony Cliff or John Tyndall who think up the ideas and use their followers to disseminate those, usually unoriginal, policies. Tony Cliff is merely a milder and less obvious Jim Jones. It is a massive ego trip for some screwed up lunatic in a society of alienated screwed up people. In a blasé society it is little wonder that people want to rise above a cesspit of mediocrity, but very few do it without the desire for power, to be superior to others.

The problem is that replacing the famous only throws up new figureheads e.g. abolish the monarchy just to introduce a politburo is just going round in circles. Bigger cages, longer chains.

Perhaps it is better to just anonymously shoot your local celebrity and disappear into the background with a knowing smile on your face. The assassination of Olaf Palme proved it is possible to gun down a star and get away with it. Every famous person who dies brightens the day – every Ayatollah, every John Lennon, every Kennedy, every Sadat, every Rock Hudson. There are so many of them that you are guaranteed at least a few each week. If only they weren’t replaced.

Even those people with the guts to assassinate the famous end up by becoming celebrities due their notoriety – Rasputin, Manson, Oswald, Ruby, Hinckley etc. Their acts of insane resistance and defiance, however commendable, tend to reduce daily resistance to a seeming pittance though, to be fair, they do provide inspiration and a good laugh, showing more imagination and impact that the revolutionary Left.

There is only one way to deal with the rich and famous … NAIL ‘EM UP!

Communique #5: Editorial Rant manifesto from AntiClockWise Issue 4

ACW and The Museum of Modern Alienation aim to be a sounding board for those people who are opposing the 1990s society of competitive, materialist selfishness based on, and more importantly reliant on, consumerism i.e. a fetish for commodities. Commodities serve only one purpose: the maintenance of the status quo; they are meant to buy our passivity. Most people have qualms and quarrels about society, but are happy to put these to one side if they can obtain the latest, usually useless, consumer durables … be it designer drugs, art, cars, environmentally friendly products or the latest in electrical goods.

All this sounds very nice and no doubt some of these goods do make life easier, but most are produced merely for production’s sake and the price is high. Much crime is created by society’s standards demanding that people need money, goods and beauty to be anything important. Inequality and poverty contribute to crime, but so do greed and the desire for more and better things. The competitiveness in society leads to mistrust and alienation of humans from each other, which in turn leads to loneliness, stress, despair, violence, hatred, suicide and a general lack of care for other people. Society cannot stop producing goods as production is what keeps capitalist ‘democracies’ going; we are all hooked and would get withdrawal symptoms if we could not consume – hence, consumption increases the destruction of the world’s resources, all covered up by the smiling face of the ad agencies, acting as capitalism’s government, regardless of who happens to be in Number 10 Downing Street.

Of course, millions are frustrated, but all they are offered is the safety valve of piss pot alternative politics, from the Labour party, CND and the environmental lobbyists to the downright obnoxious ‘extremities’ of Communism and fascism. The ultra left and right groups spout reform or impracticalities as a solution to bring better conditions to this society; their harmlessness is shown by the fact they are not crushed by the state or even taken seriously. The fact remains that there can be no real happiness in an unhappy world.

Our aim is total pleasure: a society where trust, love and friendship are predominant values and materialist consumer ideologies are relegated to history books, along with religion, politics, sacrifice and nation states. However, in the apathetic days we live in, we can be under no illusion that some glorious revolution will come along and solve all problems, as much as the far Left would like and want to lead it. Yes, of course, we should be revolutionary and militant, but our revolution has got to be now. We haven’t got all the answers, nor do we have the arrogance to patronise the working class (whatever that is) by urging them to join us.

It is surely better to develop ourselves in relation to other people and the environment around us. At the same time, class struggle or mutual solidarity are an integral part of this. Solidarity with others will bring a true resistance. During the war, the government declared that careless talk was dangerous – we say, go for it; talk to others! But, to quote a well-worn phrase, “People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicating to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth”.

Look around you, at the city you live in – the architecture, the people, the open spaces etc. Look at the lives we lead – work, leisure, relationships, food etc. Look at the political sphere – the spurious opposition, industrial disputes, the environment, the health service etc. A developed critique of society is important; a critique of how to overthrow it is as, if not more, vital.

The critique is what this zine aims to develop and it invites you to contribute. There is no party to join, no demonstrations to go on, no papers to flog on street corners, no lain down answers to all the world’s problems. The circulation of this rag is miniscule, but if it what it is saying is of some use, or has validity to those fighting back, then hopefully the ideas may be disseminated in whatever ways that are available.

Sometimes, everything seems hopeless, the odds insurmountable, but knowing there are others is inspiring. Solidarity is indeed strength, as long as individuality is not swamped by populist cloning and stereotyping. Alienation is one of power’s greatest weapons – if we are all divided over religion, politics, dress, food, soap opera or washing powder preference then we cannot be hassling those in power. Tolerate each other; be intolerant of patriarchal authority and exploitation.

The tactics are up to you. I believe there is a place for pacifism and a place for direct action against the property of capitalists. You may say this is vague, but the specifics are up t those willing to fight back. Ideally, a developed counter culture (a horrid and dated phrase, but it will do here) has to be created, with ordinary militant people prepared to take on those who bring toxic waste into their communities, to take on the police who kill and hassle their friends, to give support to those being exploited and oppressed, and most of all to be imaginative, original and devastating in doing it – to have a laugh and enjoy opposition.

Ridicule is our greatest weapon because we live in a ridiculous world.

Red Army Faction: Stammheim Murders

“No-one is feared or hated more than the opponent of the state”. It is 12 years [in 1989] since the deaths of Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe. The state called it suicide, but it was barbaric murder committed under the veil of ant Left hysteria, carried out by the state itself. Just consider a few of the questionable aspects of the case:

Baader, Ensslin and Raspe, along with Irmgard Moeller and seven other political prisoners were kept on the 7^th floor of Stammheim Prison, near Stuttgart in West Germany. All were alleged members of the self-styled guerrilla group The Red Army Faction. They were young, well educated people of largely middle class origins … but had declared war on capitalism.

On 18^th October 1977 the media reported the suicides of Baader, Ensslin and Raspe, and an attempted suicide by Moeller. From the start, the possibility that the deaths could have been anything other than suicide was never considered by the media, even when there were no facts available. Ensslin died from hanging, Baader and Raspe from pistol shots, while Moeller suffered stab wounds but survived. The ‘suicides’ were discovered at 7.41am.

There were no fingerprints on any of the weapons. This was initially explained by there being so much blood on the weapons, but this had to be retracted by the revelation that there was no blood on the pistols. How on earth did the weapon get into Stammheim? How could warders searching the cells of the most dangerous ‘terrorists’ in Europe have overlooked 2 guns and a knife? The cells were searched daily, as the German prison system is renowned for its thoroughness. The newspaper Der Spiegel claimed that Baader’s pistol was hidden in his stereo, but his stereo had been removed on 5^th September! Could lawyers have smuggled the weapons in? But they were thoroughly searched with a metal detector and no bags or dictaphones were allowed in. Prisoners were stripped and given new clothes before and after any visits. Also, officials admitted bugging and videoing the visiting rooms.

Since 6^th September (when the RAF kidnapped a former Nazi, then a leading businessman, Hans Martin Schleyer, to try to gain the release of the prisoners) total isolation or ‘Kontaksperre’ had been introduced, this included no physical contact with lawyers, no radio and generally no news at all of events outside Stammheim.

After the deaths, astonishing discoveries in the cells were reported to a gullible media, e.g. on 20^th October a Sanyo transistor radio was discovered in Raspe’s cell (this was an effort to explain how the prisoners heard of the release of the hostages from a Lufthansa 737 which had been hijacked at Mogadischu in another attempt to free the prisoners. These plants were meant to convince the public that the three dead guerrillas had been able to smuggle weapons in, if not explaining how.

A further strange fact is that there were 3 shots fired in Baader’s cell. Why 3? As a rule, after a gun has been fired traces of gunpowder are left on the hand. Der Spiegel (incorrectly, as was later to be revealed) reported that traces had been found on Baader’s right hand, but he was left handed! The autopsy reported no traces of gunpowder. The autopsy was carried out by “an eminent team of international physicians”. Amnesty International was invited to nominate a doctor, but while it was selecting one, the autopsy too place anyway. One of the doctors, Armand Andre from Belgium, said that suicide was merely plausible – far from sound proof.

Irmgard Moeller is supposed to have stabbed herself 4 times with a bread knife. Does that sound feasible? She cannot remember the stabbing, just losing consciousness and is adamant that there were no suicide pacts. At 2am on 18^th October ‘medicaments’ were given to Baader, Raspe and Moeller although none had any ailments, but no traces were found in the bodies. It has been suggested that these were psycho-pharmaceuticals that rapidly decompose and could explain Moeller’s lack of memory of the events.

According to the media, the deaths occurred after the prisoners heard of the storming of the hijacked plane at Mogadishu by German GSG-9 special police. Despite Kontaksperre, efforts were made to explain how the prisoners knew of the events. All the suggestions are ludicrous as the cells were soundproof and there was an empty cell between each prisoner.

Ensslin had stated her fears of being executed just 2 days before her death. Another RAF prisoner, Ingrid Schubert, has stated Baader had been subjected to death threats by a warder. Heinz Kuhn (Minister President of Nordrhein Westfalen) threatened “The terrorists must understand that to kill Hans Martin Schleyer can only have severe repercussions on the fate of those they seek to free through their shameful act”.

All the prisoners had said that under no circumstances would they commit suicide. It is important to remember that if prisoners are murdered it must look like suicide – an accident at Stammheim would have been unbelievable. The events at Mogadishu minimised outcry at the deaths provided a motive for the ‘suicides’ – all very convenient. The German government and the whole structure of the state stand accused of murder. This article is not a defence of the RAF, who were mostly rich kids playing the rebel, though they hit the right targets, which is more than can be said for a certain guerrilla group nearer home … and both are macho hierarchies, but at least they did fight back and the treatment meted out to them puts South American dictators to shame and shows the oppressive nature of ALL governments.

Mail Art

One assault on the gallerisation and capitalist nature of creativity in art is Mail Art networking. Mail Art is simply where individuals send letters or graphics in varying formats through the postal system to other people.

There are two important to Mail Art: the sending of the material and the content of the work. Mail Art is communication art and, as such, assaults alienation. It is the distance which unites the mail artists, giving confidence to the isolated by giving them time to consider responses. Mail Art creates a consciousness of collaboration and participation. Mail Art is teamwork.

The postal artist is, or should be, aware of their place in what is an international network of Mail Art. Mail Art is internationalist – it crosses national, geographical and cultural borders.

An important feature of Mail Art is that the items exchanged generally have no monetary value and so cannot be considered as art in the accepted capitalist sense.

Of course, some work may be later reified as a commodity or given a monetary value e.g. Andy Warhol once said that he would pay 10 dollars for anything by Ray Johnson. Organised Mail Art exhibitions in galleries should be bombed.

Mail artist should not have to justify themselves within the context of the art world, although there will always be pressure for them to do so. Mail Art is what it is, nothing else. There is no philosophy of Mail Art – it is not an art form, but a method of communication.

Mail Art’s aims are “friendship, individualism, democracy, peace, diversification, sister/brotherhood, pluralism, tolerance, co-operation, acculturation, freedom, and liberation, decentralisation, no leadership (horizontal instead of vertical communication) and recipricol relationships”.

Some artists, e.g the Fluxists,dreamed up ways of subverting the postal system by involving postal workers, notably Ben Vaultier’s postcard “The Postman’s Choice” which had several addresses on it and it was left up to the postal system to decide which of the addresses to send it to. Other options include sending abusive/weird mail to people in high office, apparently sent from their business rival. A number of political campaigns have been waged by mail, such as prisoner support and ecological protests. I support that letter bombs are Mail Art, though they are a bit indiscriminate for a liberal like me!

Rubber stamps and fake certificates have often been used in Mail Art e.g. Processed World’s Certified Bad Attitude, but the network has never taken on a distinct style. Mail Art seems to proliferate with the development of Performance Art and the increased numbers of art school students, very few of whom become fine artists. Contact lists begann to appear in the 1970s. The main attraction is that Mail Art is personal, on a one-to-one basis, and is very cheap.

There have been a number of well-known mail artists such as Anna Banana and Pauline Smith’s “Adolf Hitler Fan Club”. Mail Art has extended to sexuality/sado masochist areas with Cosey Fanni Tutti, Genesis P. Orridge and Gerry Dreva (who sent works to his friends with the pages stuck together with semen). But these people are only taken seriously because they too Mail Art seriously (and have had a number of run-ins with the police).

The democratic nature of Mail Art puts it completely apart from the elitist art world; the sheer number of people involved prevent it from becoming part of High Art, which is just fine. The potential for Mail Art has not yet been fulfilled by a long chalk; it is only restricted by our imagination. Anyone who wants to send AntiClockWise mail is welcome – the more obscene and bizarre the better!

AntiClockWise Issue 3

Communique #4: Selling dreams to sell your soul

“Most people will tell you that they aren’t fooled by advertising and that they don’t believe all they read in the newspapers or see on television. We should not cynically dismiss these claims – even when we see them continue to uncritically consume the advertised products, read the newspapers and watch television – to do so would be to totally misunderstand the nature of propaganda in spectacular society”. Larry Law

Most people have a good laugh at adverts; the commercials are just a bit of light relief from the TV programmes; you have seen the advert where you really have to pay attention to see what is actually being promoted; the adverts are often more interesting than the television programmes. It is all harmless fun, providing information for the discerning consumer. Isn’t it?

The Left often seems obsessed with a political critique of the Right when the real power has increasingly lain with culture and media. The real high priests of capitalism are not politicians, but advertising and cultural alchemists who can make gold from dirt. Advertisers are the government of commodity consumption, and the PR industry is its police. Public Relations not only rewrite history for the rich and capitalists, but it also creates what is to be taken as the Truth regardless of how true it is. We must be clear that the PR, marketing and advertising industry are the props of modern spectacular society. To destroy modern society, the ad industry must be ridiculed, exposed and annihilated.

We are convincingly sold cheap goods we do not need, so much so that we no longer question how they have been made so cheaply and shipped halfway round the world, why we actually need them, and the environmental and labour exploitation involved. It is only when there is a fatal fire in a sweat shop that there is a fleeting guilt, but that soon passes with the appalling excuse that we are keeping people in work. We have been taught to not care, as long as there are bargains to be had.

And yet, with very few exceptions, such as groups like Adbusters, the marketing and publicity industry has largely escaped the wrath of anti-capitalists. The only redeeming feature of advertisements is that they have the potential to be detourned by radicals as a revolutionary act.

There was a post-war hard sell in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s which could simply say “Product X is best so buy it”, possibly because they were for products that there was some semblance of need for, even if it was perceived rather than actual, and because this was the heyday of consumerism, especially with goods for the home. As consumers slowly started to tire of the hard sell, spectacular marketing simply adapted by turning to a reliance on subtlety, aspiration and technical brilliance to hypnotise and seduce the exploding consumer population.

Commercials seduce us into believing we need the useless. The range of goods becomes more bizarre as we become lazier – blue tooth car phones, electric toothbrushes, interactive digital televisions, computers that are voice interactive and a multitude of other novelties. And yet, all these seemingly life enhancing gadgets are simply new ways to do the same things we have always done. They simply free up more time … more time for us to consume yet more goods, ideas and images.

This seductive advertising has coincided with a glamorisation of the whole marketing industry, from Mad Men to the huge budgets splashed out by producers who are desperate to find new ways to sell old products. The resultant huge advertising, marketing and PR industry may seemingly be creative and technically brilliant, but they will never be original and they will always be stealing old ideas – in fact, they have recuperated the most radical gestures and will soon move on to pushing the boundaries of taste even further, simply because they have nothing left to offer. The glamour of selling and marketing goods and ideas is relentless, so that even the universities are full of dim young things queueing up for moronic marketing courses to learn how to keep capitalist consumerism rolling. Coveting glamorous goods makes people unhappy with their lot and aspire to established hierarchies of taste; anyone trying to create their own style is seen as a freak or weirdo, but if this ever extends its allure it will soon be integrated into spectacular society.

Post Thatcher, many people in the UK are much better off than they were before. The quiet affluence was partly based on the privatisation of traditional goods and services, from the right to buy of council houses to share profits of energy, transport, banking, post office etc. sell-offs. Of course, these were resources that were not the governments to sell as they belong to us all, but no-one will ever question “free” money. While the reduction of state control is heartening, in reality it just enriched and empowered the middle class to such an extent that their silent smug complacency can confound electoral polls in the 2105 general election.

Under Thatcher this economic free for all, which saw ostentatious instant wealth, created inflation which meant the working class poor could not afford all these new products made available because of free trade. Capitalism needed to develop so that EVERYONE was a passive consumer. Ironically (or perhaps not), it was a Labour government under Blair that saw this selfish inward looking affluence spread. Of course, we realise that all of the political establishment, of whatever political hue, are servants of capitalism, consumerism, the market and the mantra that growth is essential. Our contempt for politicians is only tempered by the realisation that they are increasingly irrelevant as international trade and individual selfishness dominate. We now have a situation where the government is only electable if it strives to ensure everyone has plenty of disposable income – individuals may think this is to improve their standard of living, but it is just to buy their subservience and, much more importantly, so that each and every person can buy more goods.

Advertising is social control by seduction. Those in power would rather have you occupied with the latest smart phone, interactive TV or X-box than having time on your hands, questioning things, mixing with other open-minded people etc. We are overwhelmed with the need to be present on a bewildering and time eating array of social media, which exposes us to the lucrative advertising and also distracts us from real life. The Spectacle has successfully bought our opposition and creativity with worthless goods that we are encouraged to work hard to obtain.

Marketing divides us into neat client groups, which the companies can direct their products at. Of course, we remember that it was the marketing people who created the teenager to directly sell clothes, music, cosmetics etc. to. The young are traditionally the most anti-authoritarian age group, but they covet the goods on offer if they work hard, study and mimic the consumption of the rest of society. Looting and shoplifting never seemed to satisfy the desire for goods; it was the act of shopping that provided the allure because it was continuous. Individuality was negated by putting everyone into a target group; yet, even this was not enough to keep capitalism happy and ensure economic growth was sustained … marketing and advertising can now sell ANYTHING to ANYONE, regardless of age, gender, sexuality, background, class, race etc. They are on the verge of total victory with a huge population increase of people who aspire to be avid consumers  … only threatened by diminishing cheap / slave labour and resources unless technology can address these problems.

In the UK we have been taught to ensure we are personally secure by hoarding money and fearing anything that may impact on our own little bubble of comfortable affluence (it doesn’t really matter how much that is, just as long as there is more than enough for our traditional basic needs of shelter, food and clothing). Advertising still urges us to buy the same TV, video games, phones, art, computers etc. as everyone else, but we have been seduced into thinking that we are special and unique in our consumption. We even consume the same ideas now, especially when our choices of politicians are almost exactly alike apart from the name. If that is all that is presented, we believe that it all there is. At work, we fear others taking our jobs; we must compete to climb the ladder so that we can become better consumers and the nastiest thrive. A bland, selfish and inward looking society is created. Intolerance inevitably follows; creativity and originality are stifled.

The marketing people can even take our fears and opposition, and turn them into a profitable and harmless product e.g. a fear of the destruction of the natural environment bred the green consumer, championed by Anita Roddick et al. Advertisers play on our fears to sell a whole range of security and surveillance products. And rebellion is also transformed into a marketing tool, from the glamour of revolution to The Sex Pistols Virgin credit card. This is recuperation at its finest.

Commercials also maintain our credibility in television as most programmes have very little personal relationship with the viewers’ life … but the goods in the advertisements do, so the viewer keeps watching as a spectator of Spectacular society. After all, we must make sure we have the latest products and if it is on television it must be OK.

One of the more nauseating elements of this whole circus is the way that goods are sold by a media saying “It is a pleasure to buy, pleasure is in buying, pleasure can be bought” or “This (mass produced) product is for the individual” or “This product will enrich your life”. Marketing has made pleasure into a materialistic concept; people will cling to products rather than people, strengthening isolation. Spectacular media creates culture in its own image – from fashion to politics. Consumer society is selling happiness, yet increasingly it is a lonely, hollow and desperate illusion of happiness that simply leaves us wanting more, like the addictive drug it is.

By considering each marketing ploy out of context it can actually seem to lose some of its allure. The Emperor does have no clothes. Beyond this, the options are up to the discerning anti-consumer – turn off the TV, buy non brand items, refuse to consume goods that are not essential for survival, alter the advertisements (detournement), spread doubt and disharmony about shopping. Lambast the advertising and marketing industry because they are even more reprehensible than even politicians and bankers. Be a happy anti-consumer!

“Manifeste Cannibale Dada”, Dada, n°7, 1920, page 2 (Francis Picabia)

“You are all indicted; Stand up! It is impossible to talk to you unless you are standing up. Stand up as you would for the Marseillaise or God Save The King.

“Stand up, as if the flag were before you. Or if you were in the presence of Dada, which signifies Life, and which accuses you of loving everything out of snobbery if only it is expensive enough.

“So, you have sat down again. So much the better. You will listen more attentively.

“What are you doing here, crammed in like a lot of serious-minded crustaceans? Because you are serious-minded, aren’t you? Serious, serious, serious unto death. Death is a serious matter, isn’t it?

“One dies a hero’s death or an idiot’s death – which comes to the same thing. The only word that has more than a day-to-day value is the word death. You love Death – the Death of others.

“Kill them! Let them die! Only money does not die; it only – goes away for a little while.

“That is God! That is someone to respect: someone you can take seriously! Money is the prie-Dieu of entire families. Money for ever! Long live money!  The man who has money is a man of honour.

“Honour can be bought and sold like the arse. The arse, the arse, represents life like potato chips, and all you are serious-minded will smell worse than cow’s shit.

“Dada alone does not smell: it is nothing, nothing, nothing.

                                        It is like your hopes: nothing

like your paradise: nothing

like your idols: nothing

like your politicians: nothing

like your heroes: nothing

like your artists: nothing

like your religions: nothing

“Hiss, shout, kick my teeth in, so what? I shall still tell you that you are half-wits. In three months my friends and I will be selling your pictures for a few francs.”

DADA Nihilist Anti Art: Chaos, Spontaneity, Chance!

This article does not attempt to analyse specific artefacts or techniques employed by the Dadaists – undoubtedly this is interesting, but can be further examined by anyone interested at a library. The relevance of Dada lies in the motivation of its exponents, the passion of these people and the lesson of its ultimate destruction by Surrealism and a conservative, apathetic society.

Dada followed the Futurist movement of the early 1900s which, although an art movement, had extended it range of activities from paintings to architecture, clothes politics.

During World War One Switzerland remained neutral and thus was a haven for deserters, pacifists, radicals and artists. Many of these people gathered around the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich, which had been established by Hugo Ball on 1^st February 1916. The Cabaret Voltaire mounted nightly orgies of singing, poetry and dancing at a time when the rest of Europe was being ravaged by war.

The movement aimed, through the destruction of art, to assault the entire bourgeois society that had caused the horrific war. Dadaists saw art as the ultimate symbol of bourgeois culture and so attacked it relentlessly – but they also aimed to redefine art as a total experience of being in the world.

The magazine “Dada” came out, produced by several of those attending the Cabaret Voltaire – Tristan Tzara, Richard Huelsenbeck, Andre Breton, Hans Arp et al. the Dadaists aimed for complete liberation from order itself, it was against all programmes. The Dada manifesto of 1916 (there were many) declared: “Dada means nothing … Thought is produced in the mouth”.

Dada sought to break the chains that prevented creativity or a recognition of freedom in a confused, contradictory and absurd modern world.

Dadaists believed that chance, irrationality and disorder could reveal possibilities of a new world. Humour was a vital part of the movement, mocking everything (including themselves) and taking laughter seriously – this is where the anarchist movement has often failed.

To outrage public opinion was a basic principle of Dada.

By 1918 a more nihilist ant-art developed with the arrival in Zurich of other radicals, such as Francis Picabia and Dr. Walter Serner. Picabia was later to join Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray as part of the New York Dada scene.

Berlin Dada was established by Richard Huelsenbeck and Raoul Hausman around the time of the 1918 uprisings, where they formed the Dadaist Revolutionary Central Council, involving people like Franz Jung, John and Weiland Heartfield, Hans Richter and George Grosz. A general aim of this group was to put people in a position to exploit their mental and physical energies, “To hell with art if it gets in the way”. In practice, the battle against art was a battle against the social conditions prevailing in Germany at that time (which is what art should be about).

In Cologne, Max Ernst and Johannes Baargeld established the Dada Conspiracy of the Rhineland. Photomontage was developed using cut up photographs with added drawings, pasted in bits of newspaper etc. to confront a crazy world with its own image (punk really was old hat, you see!). Collage had been done before, but the addition of photographs was new and important as photography was seen as an alienating image creator.

Phonetic poetry also developed under Dada. Poetry readings took on theatrical proportions, with accompanying sounds and drama. In Hanover, Kurt Schwitters became a Dadaist poet, painter and organiser – usually all at the same time, with no respect for anyone.

In Paris, the French were wary of Dada and its eccentricities. Paris Dada was largely limited to writers. The Paris audiences found it difficult to swallow the ideas of Napoleon, Marx, Kant, Cezanne and Lenin all at once, and so had a tendency to riot at Dada soirees, which, of course, was what was wanted by the Dadaists.

However, by 1921 the time for anarchy was over for Breton, on whom none of the anti-authoritarianism and certainly none of the humour, of Dada had rubbed off. The buffoonery of the Dadaists dissolved into farce, opening divisions. More importantly, the shock element was fading.

Thus Sur-realism developed, initially as a weapon to destroy Dada, which it duly did, and is much better known today … but that’s the nature of history! Andre Breton ruled the Surrealists with an iron fist and codified the Dada revolt into a strict intellectual discipline which embodied dream and chance. The spirit and influence of Dada, I believe, have transcended and had wider ranging implications than the Stalinist Surrealism – which is now thought of as an artistic style rather than a revolutionary movement. The only shock came from Salvador Dali who soon turned his back on the Surrealist circle to do his own thing and became an anarchist who loved the monarchy and his country (True Dada!).

Stewart Home said of Surrealism, “Under this title it became the most degenerate expression of the Utopian tradition during the pre-war years. Whereas Berlin Dada rejected both art and work, the Surrealists embraced painting, occultism, Freudianism and numerous other bourgeois mystifications.”

DADA   dada   DAda   daDA   DaDa   dAdA   DaDa   dADA   DaDA   DADa

(AntiClockWise Issue 3)

Situationist Library

Following on from the Anarchist Library, here is a link to a great resource of a Situationist Library.

The Situationist Library

Anarchist Library

I have just noticed this great resource for anarchist reading; search for titles under Author, Title or Topic. The Anarchist Library

A pane in the glass: Reflections on glass in our urban environment.

I tend to walk a lot through towns and cities, and love to just wander and wonder (dérive). One of the things that I notice is the relevance of glass in our built environment. These are a few of the glass ideas that have crossed my daydreaming mind.

I’m fascinated by the fragile beauty of glass. It is produced in an almost alchemical manner – the idea of making glass from sand is magical to a non-scientist like me!

A product that can withstand extremes of weather and protect us from the elements can still be reduced to fragments when broken. We take glass for granted but it literally influences our view of the world.

The breaking of glass is often exciting and an indicator that a demonstration is threatening to become riot … though there is a sinister element from the damage broken glass can inflict to images from 9/11 and events like Kristallnacht. 

When drifting through streets I tend to judge how safe or pleasant a place is from the amount of broken glass about (along with other factors of course). A place with broken glass feels dangerous, dilapidated or distressed.

The historical development of glass from a resource just for the rich through to issues like window taxes (leading to many being bricked up, which you can still see) and the proliferation of glass in modern construction is fascinating to me.

I am interested in the democratisation of natural light, which in architecture is largely related to glass in windows. I toy with the concept of glass in unitary urbanism – both theory and praxis – and how that can be integrated into a Situationist approach to the City. 

In the stately homes of the rich, and even the middle class at times, the wealthy enjoy the benefits of glass windows while the staff would be found in the dingy basements, so light and glass are integral in class division.

Being English and aware of the vagaries of the weather, I much prefer locally sourced stone or brick buildings, rather than the steel, concrete and huge sheets of glass that proliferate in new buildings, which dwarf architecturally more enduring edifices.

The development of office blocks made primarily from steel and glass is often grim, but I am more intrigued by the fact that most of the glass only allows the person inside to see out; to the outside world it is just a blue or silver washed screen. I often consider how this divides us and contributes to a world that is largely led indoors, with outsiders being that in so many ways. 

Everyone shall live in their own cathedral. The Hacienda must be built. Destroy the mystique of the high priests of architecture. 

Each home should be unique for the inhabitants – individuality within a mutually supportive community of individuals. Every community building will have a practical beauty for those who use it. Playful, practical and perpetually evolving.