From Wednesday February 11th to Friday February 13th, 2009, Deptford Town Hall became the site of a new kind of student politics at Goldsmiths: a kind that favours collective action and direct democracy over pointless petitions and popularity contests. After a mere 29 hours of occupation of the Hall’s marble stairwells and neoclassical chamber halls, Goldsmiths’ Senior Management Team had caved in and granted four full scholarships a year for 10 years to students from areas of political strife and humanitarian crisis. This leaflet is an attempt to evaluate the occupation and its successes and failures.
For A&S, the occupation was a victory for the sort of direct action and democratic methods that characterise genuine social change, rather than for Palestinian nationalism or hand-wringing liberalism. We see the Palestinian ‘cause’ as reinforcing the existing authoritarian, capitalist structures in the Middle East, which as anarchists we also reject. For us, it is the act of occupying in itself that is revolutionary. This was borne out by the staggering change of perspective that all the occupiers underwent, with ideas and actions that had previously seemed ‘radical’ being (democratically) voted through by larger and larger majorities as time went on; and by Thursday evening, we were debating the different paths to social change and the makeup of a fair society.
Decisions were made by a meeting of all the occupiers, with anyone welcome to contribute and add to the agenda. A chair was elected every time in order to track the order of speakers (who have to raise their hands) and ensure that the meeting is faithful to its agenda. Where there was disagreement, decisions were made by majority votes. Unfortunately, the chair was not rotated sufficiently from one meeting to the next, and sometimes chairpeople (and some of the more vocal individuals) were tempted to speak out of turn, replying to points directly instead of waiting their turn like everyone else. This risked turning meetings from open discussions leading to democratic decisions into question and answer sessions with the ‘better-informed’ individuals on predetermined courses of action.
The pitfalls of ignoring democratic processes were clearly demonstrated in the last meeting of the occupiers, which ended in a vote to accept management’s terms (seen on the occupation blog here). The delegation, which communicated with management, emerged convinced of our victory, and their enthusiasm clouded the judgement of the general meeting to discuss the offer. We were explicit in our demands (which were two full scholarships for students from Al-Quds Open University), we allowed our excitement to cede them certain vagaries in the agreement (which actually only undertakes to give two scholarships to students from any Palestinian university). It may seem like a nominal difference, but we had voted down earlier offers over similar details, and the group was resolute that the scholarships should be for Al-Quds students. Other discrepancies were clear in the agreement’s imprecise language, which offers College loopholes with which to undermine the scholarship programme.
The ‘socials’ that were held each night also highlighted the different notions of ‘solidarity’ that existed within the occupation. Some were accused devaluing the cause and lessening the impact of the occupation by wanting to open up the space, while others believed that offering music, food and discussion were the best way to involve the wider student body. A&S took the position that solidarity is a material, definable act (like occupying a building) and not sitting around thinking how terrible it must be to live in Gaza. We believe the demands of this occupation were legitimate because they encouraged solidarity with people (the prospective Palestinian students) and not ideologies (Hamas, Palestinian nationalism).
To win what appears to be a concrete victory in just 29 hours is a clear vindication of direct action. Moreover, the general feeling at the conclusion of the occupation was that direct action had proved itself so effective that our demands were seen as too timid, and that our action had been too brief.
Through the smokescreen of student politics and bureaucratic wrangling, some of us caught a glimpse of an emancipatory form of participation: But why settle for a glimpse?
Your favourite student anarchist group,
Autonomy & Solidarity
Thursday 26 February 2009
Monday 23 February 2009
A Personal Account of the Occupation - Successes, Failures and Opportunities for Transformation
On Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 around 50 students from Goldsmiths entered Deptford Town Hall - the main administration building for the university - and declared it occupied.
The occupiers demanded that two scholarships should be awarded to students of Al-Quds University in Palestine and the upper floors of the building were converted into a free space in which discussions, talks, music and parties would be hosted.
Autonomy & Solidarity were involved in the occupation and supported the demands made. As anarchists the question of becoming involved with campaigns of national liberation often presents a difficulties. The groups involved tend to propose a simple rearrangement of existing authoritarian structures, which is incompatible with anarchism’s rejection of the state and its hierarchy. However, we viewed the Palestine Twinning Campaign’s scholarships struggle as legitimate as it represents solidarity with people (the students) rather than ideologies (Hamas, Palestinian nationalism).
It was clear from the outset that engaging in direct action – in this case an occupation - would raise further issues. The widened discussion that ensued once inside the building took the action beyond solidarity with a besieged people; questioning what constitutes property, what a real democracy would look like and the feasibility of these processes within the status quo. For all of us in Britain, the situation in Palestine is abstracted, a situation we have little power to alter. During the 2 days of occupation, aspects of our reality were altered: we were offered a glimpse of new ways of organising our reality. These methods are transferable to other aspects of our lives: in school, in our workplaces and in our local neighbourhoods.
This leaflet attempts to evaluate tactics and modes of organisation that were used, in the hope of providing a model for how the situation could be repeated, and our mistakes learned from. The occupation was a collective effort: everyone present was directly involved both in the decision making process and the implementation of what was decided and the failures that followed. We are experimenting: there is no absolute method so what is important now is to prevent the events of those few days becoming an alienating myth. Throughout the occupation, despite the fact that there were disagreements and tactical errors which occurred on all sides, there was a sense of companionship as well as a general valuation of what seemed to be an extremely democratic decision process. We made friends, acquaintances and compañeros and hope that the relationships built within that space can withstand (and of course respond to!) critical evaluation.
PLANNING
Prior to the occupation th to carry out reconnaissance. this, the expeditions gave us an idea of entrances and exits, fortifiable areas (in our case, the two staircases in the building), the existence and location of facilities such as toilets, kitchens, offices and boardrooms. Additionally we made sure access would be possible: Deptford Town Hall has a key card system that only works with certain cards (held by staff and students who use the building for lectures).
On the eve of the occupation a planning meeting was held: This was the first meeting the majority of A&S had been present at and as such we are not sure how typical it was of previous meetings though it struck many as poorly and undemocratically facilitated. Processes were muddy, especially when it came to setting an agenda and electing a chair. As the meeting continued this observation was hard to dispel; for example the chair appeared to answer questions directly rather than facilitating the discussion. This may have been one of the reasons such a large, diverse and committed group were not as multi-vocal as one would expect. The suggestion for an amended flyer (NOT an additional demand, which was a separate issue) seemed to be grossly misrepresented: The vote that was held seemed completely unrelated to what we had attempted to propose. Were we just there to be the muscle, with no voice in the proceedings? While the meeting was disheartening, thankfully, it was to become the exception rather than the rule.
ENTRY AND INITIAL ACTIVITIES
The assumption made was that entering the building initially would not be a problem: locking it down in anticipation of our arrival could have caused just as much disruption as our action and we assumed the university would shy away from heavy handed measures at least in the immediate future. With that in mind we gathered as a group of between 30-40 before moving to Deptford Town Hall.
Upon entering we received no resistance and quickly moved to the top of the stairs before dropping banners from the balcony and windows. A flyer was immediately issued stating that the initial occupation was successful.
There was not a clear plan as to which rooms to take control of immediately and we consolidated our position on the balcony, the large hall at the top of the stairs and the small kitchen. In hindsight more effort should have been made to secure other rooms as security quickly locked many leaving us with fewer options later on. Due to the nature of the occupation, damage to the building was not considered suitable, though in another situation somehow blocking the locks (with superglue?) could solve the problem of an understaffed occupation, allowing the rooms to be entered later after discussion had been held.
After an hour or so, a music student appeared saying she had a recital booked for the large hall. It was spontaneously decided to let this go ahead and she performed with minimal disruption.
FIRST GENERAL MEETING
The initial meeting was far better organised than the planning one held the night before. The vast majority of individuals involved in the occupation were present and someone was nominated to chair the meeting. The position of chair was subsequently rotated at each meeting A brief agenda was proposed, though there seemed like little in the way of a formal structure to amend or add to it, which had the affect of muddling parts of the discussion as issues bled into each other (Throughout the occupation however many meetings were based around the negotiations and as such had little need for a particular agenda as there tended to only be a single issue to discuss).
Additionally, working groups of between 5-10 people were set up for organisation of social events, media and negotiation with the administration with the aim of creating a balance between efficiency and democratic accountability.
WORKING GROUPS
The groups had been given a level of autonomy which was appropriate considering that most of their tasks had already been decided on by the general meeting: Their mandate was largely to implement these decisions and work out the details. If a group went beyond this mandate it could be called to account at the next meeting.
INITIAL MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT FOLLOWED BY GENERAL MEETING
This meeting exposed some of the manipulative tactics that would be repeatedly employed by management throughout the negotiations. Those present complained of obfuscation, attempts to divert the issue and requests by the management for meetings with small groups of delegates in order to create hierarchies and manufacture splits and tensions within the occupation.
Once management left a General meeting was held in which it was agreed that a working group would be mandated to meet with management to discuss proposals. That group would however have no power to come to an agreement with management before it relayed the results of that meeting to the rest of the occupation who could then vote. Additionally, concerns were raised about the modes of interaction with management: Negotiations from that point on should avoid becoming personal and there should be no sign of the occupation making any concessions or taking steps back before the demands were met satisfactorily.
FIRST NIGHTS SOCIAL AND RELATED SITUATIONS
It had been decided in an earlier meeting to bill the first night as a ‘social’ rather than a party on the grounds of keeping the demands focused. As it happened, this distinction didn’t seem to have a substantial influence on the events of the nights.
The working group for the social organised a flyer and put boards in front of anything particularly fragile or expensive (the hall contained a grand piano) as well as putting up a few signs asking people not to smoke indoors etc in response to a request in the general meeting. A PA was found in the building which meant people could DJ with mp3 players reducing the need for extra equipment.
The first night was fairly sparsely attended aside from the occupiers, though various groups came and went during the night.
The socials were not only a chance to celebrate or revel in our position, they were also intrinsically political and quite possibly a factor in the managements decision-making. They asserted that the building was no longer under the control of the university authorities and that it was our space to hold whatever events we chose, whenever we chose. Additionally they illustrated the fact that what was happening was not simply a political demonstration aimed at achieving concessions from authority, but an autonomous, revolutionary space in and of itself. The building was active almost 24 hours a day and come 6pm we didn’t lay down our ideologies and go to our beds, rather we turned a symbol of power and bureaucracy into a plateau on which to enact and experiment with our desires and passions with a minimal level of external suppression.
THE FIRST MORNING: ESCALATION
At 7am, before any of the office workers arrived barricades were erected on both of the staircases with signs stating that whilst students were welcome to pass through, anyone in an administrative position was forbidden.
Several hours in we discovered after debating whether to allow a music department ‘Masterclass’ to go ahead in the main hall that all events for that room had already been rescheduled by the various departments.
By placing the barricades the situation was immediately escalated and the dynamic of the building was radically altered: Upon walking through the front door you were confronted with a physical barrier, manned at all times by at least two people
FINAL NEGOTIATIONS
During the final day things moved exceptionally fast with meetings been called almost hourly and by mid afternoon all demands had been met by management with these gains concreted for a minimum of ten years. A student vote to continue the programme at the end of the ten year period was also instated.
However the system of bringing the administrations response back to the occupation before making any decisions broke down on this final occasion. The perceived victory was announced immediately and there was little opportunity to thoroughly debate the content of the response. As it stands, the final response from the administration contains various ambiguous and vague statements, some of which potentially undermining the whole issue of the funding of the scholarships.
This was immediately followed by a spirited and freshly informed ‘anarchism vs. socialism’ debate and a talk. Much of what went on at the victory party is probably best kept out of print but by morning the building was cleared and vacated.
FINAL THOUGHTS
To win such a concrete victory in just 29 hours is a fantastic success and hopefully vindicates direct action as a viable tactic in many situations. However, the revolutionary spirit of the occupation, which seemed to grow as time marched on, felt neutered by the sudden cease in activities. The difference in atmosphere between the planning meeting the night before the occupation (which was characterised by poor organisation and paranoid accusations of sabotage) and even the first afternoon was staggering. Networks of trust and mutual aid began to appear and individual attempts to take charge tended to lessen.
The occupation was far from utopia, and had it lasted longer it is likely that further difficulties would have been encountered, perhaps even complete splits. That we did not have time to deal with these occurrences was in some ways more disheartening than the potential challenges themselves.
Additionally, the demands we had were ultimately reasonable and easily quantified. That the administration gave in so readily could be read entirely as testament to the strength of our action, or perhaps that ultimately it wasn’t that much of a concession for them to make. The situation never reached the stage where we had to deal with the police or other authorities
Regardless of the specifics of our situation, through the smokescreen of student politics and bureaucratic wrangling, some of us caught a glimpse of an emancipatory, direct form of participation that could be taken up and manipulated to transform the very fabric of our existence.
On Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 around 50 students from Goldsmiths entered Deptford Town Hall - the main administration building for the university - and declared it occupied.
The occupiers demanded that two scholarships should be awarded to students of Al-Quds University in Palestine and the upper floors of the building were converted into a free space in which discussions, talks, music and parties would be hosted.
Autonomy & Solidarity were involved in the occupation and supported the demands made. As anarchists the question of becoming involved with campaigns of national liberation often presents a difficulties. The groups involved tend to propose a simple rearrangement of existing authoritarian structures, which is incompatible with anarchism’s rejection of the state and its hierarchy. However, we viewed the Palestine Twinning Campaign’s scholarships struggle as legitimate as it represents solidarity with people (the students) rather than ideologies (Hamas, Palestinian nationalism).
It was clear from the outset that engaging in direct action – in this case an occupation - would raise further issues. The widened discussion that ensued once inside the building took the action beyond solidarity with a besieged people; questioning what constitutes property, what a real democracy would look like and the feasibility of these processes within the status quo. For all of us in Britain, the situation in Palestine is abstracted, a situation we have little power to alter. During the 2 days of occupation, aspects of our reality were altered: we were offered a glimpse of new ways of organising our reality. These methods are transferable to other aspects of our lives: in school, in our workplaces and in our local neighbourhoods.
This leaflet attempts to evaluate tactics and modes of organisation that were used, in the hope of providing a model for how the situation could be repeated, and our mistakes learned from. The occupation was a collective effort: everyone present was directly involved both in the decision making process and the implementation of what was decided and the failures that followed. We are experimenting: there is no absolute method so what is important now is to prevent the events of those few days becoming an alienating myth. Throughout the occupation, despite the fact that there were disagreements and tactical errors which occurred on all sides, there was a sense of companionship as well as a general valuation of what seemed to be an extremely democratic decision process. We made friends, acquaintances and compañeros and hope that the relationships built within that space can withstand (and of course respond to!) critical evaluation.
PLANNING
Prior to the occupation th to carry out reconnaissance. this, the expeditions gave us an idea of entrances and exits, fortifiable areas (in our case, the two staircases in the building), the existence and location of facilities such as toilets, kitchens, offices and boardrooms. Additionally we made sure access would be possible: Deptford Town Hall has a key card system that only works with certain cards (held by staff and students who use the building for lectures).
On the eve of the occupation a planning meeting was held: This was the first meeting the majority of A&S had been present at and as such we are not sure how typical it was of previous meetings though it struck many as poorly and undemocratically facilitated. Processes were muddy, especially when it came to setting an agenda and electing a chair. As the meeting continued this observation was hard to dispel; for example the chair appeared to answer questions directly rather than facilitating the discussion. This may have been one of the reasons such a large, diverse and committed group were not as multi-vocal as one would expect. The suggestion for an amended flyer (NOT an additional demand, which was a separate issue) seemed to be grossly misrepresented: The vote that was held seemed completely unrelated to what we had attempted to propose. Were we just there to be the muscle, with no voice in the proceedings? While the meeting was disheartening, thankfully, it was to become the exception rather than the rule.
ENTRY AND INITIAL ACTIVITIES
The assumption made was that entering the building initially would not be a problem: locking it down in anticipation of our arrival could have caused just as much disruption as our action and we assumed the university would shy away from heavy handed measures at least in the immediate future. With that in mind we gathered as a group of between 30-40 before moving to Deptford Town Hall.
Upon entering we received no resistance and quickly moved to the top of the stairs before dropping banners from the balcony and windows. A flyer was immediately issued stating that the initial occupation was successful.
There was not a clear plan as to which rooms to take control of immediately and we consolidated our position on the balcony, the large hall at the top of the stairs and the small kitchen. In hindsight more effort should have been made to secure other rooms as security quickly locked many leaving us with fewer options later on. Due to the nature of the occupation, damage to the building was not considered suitable, though in another situation somehow blocking the locks (with superglue?) could solve the problem of an understaffed occupation, allowing the rooms to be entered later after discussion had been held.
After an hour or so, a music student appeared saying she had a recital booked for the large hall. It was spontaneously decided to let this go ahead and she performed with minimal disruption.
FIRST GENERAL MEETING
The initial meeting was far better organised than the planning one held the night before. The vast majority of individuals involved in the occupation were present and someone was nominated to chair the meeting. The position of chair was subsequently rotated at each meeting A brief agenda was proposed, though there seemed like little in the way of a formal structure to amend or add to it, which had the affect of muddling parts of the discussion as issues bled into each other (Throughout the occupation however many meetings were based around the negotiations and as such had little need for a particular agenda as there tended to only be a single issue to discuss).
Additionally, working groups of between 5-10 people were set up for organisation of social events, media and negotiation with the administration with the aim of creating a balance between efficiency and democratic accountability.
WORKING GROUPS
The groups had been given a level of autonomy which was appropriate considering that most of their tasks had already been decided on by the general meeting: Their mandate was largely to implement these decisions and work out the details. If a group went beyond this mandate it could be called to account at the next meeting.
INITIAL MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT FOLLOWED BY GENERAL MEETING
This meeting exposed some of the manipulative tactics that would be repeatedly employed by management throughout the negotiations. Those present complained of obfuscation, attempts to divert the issue and requests by the management for meetings with small groups of delegates in order to create hierarchies and manufacture splits and tensions within the occupation.
Once management left a General meeting was held in which it was agreed that a working group would be mandated to meet with management to discuss proposals. That group would however have no power to come to an agreement with management before it relayed the results of that meeting to the rest of the occupation who could then vote. Additionally, concerns were raised about the modes of interaction with management: Negotiations from that point on should avoid becoming personal and there should be no sign of the occupation making any concessions or taking steps back before the demands were met satisfactorily.
FIRST NIGHTS SOCIAL AND RELATED SITUATIONS
It had been decided in an earlier meeting to bill the first night as a ‘social’ rather than a party on the grounds of keeping the demands focused. As it happened, this distinction didn’t seem to have a substantial influence on the events of the nights.
The working group for the social organised a flyer and put boards in front of anything particularly fragile or expensive (the hall contained a grand piano) as well as putting up a few signs asking people not to smoke indoors etc in response to a request in the general meeting. A PA was found in the building which meant people could DJ with mp3 players reducing the need for extra equipment.
The first night was fairly sparsely attended aside from the occupiers, though various groups came and went during the night.
The socials were not only a chance to celebrate or revel in our position, they were also intrinsically political and quite possibly a factor in the managements decision-making. They asserted that the building was no longer under the control of the university authorities and that it was our space to hold whatever events we chose, whenever we chose. Additionally they illustrated the fact that what was happening was not simply a political demonstration aimed at achieving concessions from authority, but an autonomous, revolutionary space in and of itself. The building was active almost 24 hours a day and come 6pm we didn’t lay down our ideologies and go to our beds, rather we turned a symbol of power and bureaucracy into a plateau on which to enact and experiment with our desires and passions with a minimal level of external suppression.
THE FIRST MORNING: ESCALATION
At 7am, before any of the office workers arrived barricades were erected on both of the staircases with signs stating that whilst students were welcome to pass through, anyone in an administrative position was forbidden.
Several hours in we discovered after debating whether to allow a music department ‘Masterclass’ to go ahead in the main hall that all events for that room had already been rescheduled by the various departments.
By placing the barricades the situation was immediately escalated and the dynamic of the building was radically altered: Upon walking through the front door you were confronted with a physical barrier, manned at all times by at least two people
FINAL NEGOTIATIONS
During the final day things moved exceptionally fast with meetings been called almost hourly and by mid afternoon all demands had been met by management with these gains concreted for a minimum of ten years. A student vote to continue the programme at the end of the ten year period was also instated.
However the system of bringing the administrations response back to the occupation before making any decisions broke down on this final occasion. The perceived victory was announced immediately and there was little opportunity to thoroughly debate the content of the response. As it stands, the final response from the administration contains various ambiguous and vague statements, some of which potentially undermining the whole issue of the funding of the scholarships.
This was immediately followed by a spirited and freshly informed ‘anarchism vs. socialism’ debate and a talk. Much of what went on at the victory party is probably best kept out of print but by morning the building was cleared and vacated.
FINAL THOUGHTS
To win such a concrete victory in just 29 hours is a fantastic success and hopefully vindicates direct action as a viable tactic in many situations. However, the revolutionary spirit of the occupation, which seemed to grow as time marched on, felt neutered by the sudden cease in activities. The difference in atmosphere between the planning meeting the night before the occupation (which was characterised by poor organisation and paranoid accusations of sabotage) and even the first afternoon was staggering. Networks of trust and mutual aid began to appear and individual attempts to take charge tended to lessen.
The occupation was far from utopia, and had it lasted longer it is likely that further difficulties would have been encountered, perhaps even complete splits. That we did not have time to deal with these occurrences was in some ways more disheartening than the potential challenges themselves.
Additionally, the demands we had were ultimately reasonable and easily quantified. That the administration gave in so readily could be read entirely as testament to the strength of our action, or perhaps that ultimately it wasn’t that much of a concession for them to make. The situation never reached the stage where we had to deal with the police or other authorities
Regardless of the specifics of our situation, through the smokescreen of student politics and bureaucratic wrangling, some of us caught a glimpse of an emancipatory, direct form of participation that could be taken up and manipulated to transform the very fabric of our existence.
The occupiers demanded that two scholarships should be awarded to students of Al-Quds University in Palestine and the upper floors of the building were converted into a free space in which discussions, talks, music and parties would be hosted.
Autonomy & Solidarity were involved in the occupation and supported the demands made. As anarchists the question of becoming involved with campaigns of national liberation often presents a difficulties. The groups involved tend to propose a simple rearrangement of existing authoritarian structures, which is incompatible with anarchism’s rejection of the state and its hierarchy. However, we viewed the Palestine Twinning Campaign’s scholarships struggle as legitimate as it represents solidarity with people (the students) rather than ideologies (Hamas, Palestinian nationalism).
It was clear from the outset that engaging in direct action – in this case an occupation - would raise further issues. The widened discussion that ensued once inside the building took the action beyond solidarity with a besieged people; questioning what constitutes property, what a real democracy would look like and the feasibility of these processes within the status quo. For all of us in Britain, the situation in Palestine is abstracted, a situation we have little power to alter. During the 2 days of occupation, aspects of our reality were altered: we were offered a glimpse of new ways of organising our reality. These methods are transferable to other aspects of our lives: in school, in our workplaces and in our local neighbourhoods.
This leaflet attempts to evaluate tactics and modes of organisation that were used, in the hope of providing a model for how the situation could be repeated, and our mistakes learned from. The occupation was a collective effort: everyone present was directly involved both in the decision making process and the implementation of what was decided and the failures that followed. We are experimenting: there is no absolute method so what is important now is to prevent the events of those few days becoming an alienating myth. Throughout the occupation, despite the fact that there were disagreements and tactical errors which occurred on all sides, there was a sense of companionship as well as a general valuation of what seemed to be an extremely democratic decision process. We made friends, acquaintances and compañeros and hope that the relationships built within that space can withstand (and of course respond to!) critical evaluation.
PLANNING
Prior to the occupation th to carry out reconnaissance. this, the expeditions gave us an idea of entrances and exits, fortifiable areas (in our case, the two staircases in the building), the existence and location of facilities such as toilets, kitchens, offices and boardrooms. Additionally we made sure access would be possible: Deptford Town Hall has a key card system that only works with certain cards (held by staff and students who use the building for lectures).
On the eve of the occupation a planning meeting was held: This was the first meeting the majority of A&S had been present at and as such we are not sure how typical it was of previous meetings though it struck many as poorly and undemocratically facilitated. Processes were muddy, especially when it came to setting an agenda and electing a chair. As the meeting continued this observation was hard to dispel; for example the chair appeared to answer questions directly rather than facilitating the discussion. This may have been one of the reasons such a large, diverse and committed group were not as multi-vocal as one would expect. The suggestion for an amended flyer (NOT an additional demand, which was a separate issue) seemed to be grossly misrepresented: The vote that was held seemed completely unrelated to what we had attempted to propose. Were we just there to be the muscle, with no voice in the proceedings? While the meeting was disheartening, thankfully, it was to become the exception rather than the rule.
ENTRY AND INITIAL ACTIVITIES
The assumption made was that entering the building initially would not be a problem: locking it down in anticipation of our arrival could have caused just as much disruption as our action and we assumed the university would shy away from heavy handed measures at least in the immediate future. With that in mind we gathered as a group of between 30-40 before moving to Deptford Town Hall.
Upon entering we received no resistance and quickly moved to the top of the stairs before dropping banners from the balcony and windows. A flyer was immediately issued stating that the initial occupation was successful.
There was not a clear plan as to which rooms to take control of immediately and we consolidated our position on the balcony, the large hall at the top of the stairs and the small kitchen. In hindsight more effort should have been made to secure other rooms as security quickly locked many leaving us with fewer options later on. Due to the nature of the occupation, damage to the building was not considered suitable, though in another situation somehow blocking the locks (with superglue?) could solve the problem of an understaffed occupation, allowing the rooms to be entered later after discussion had been held.
After an hour or so, a music student appeared saying she had a recital booked for the large hall. It was spontaneously decided to let this go ahead and she performed with minimal disruption.
FIRST GENERAL MEETING
The initial meeting was far better organised than the planning one held the night before. The vast majority of individuals involved in the occupation were present and someone was nominated to chair the meeting. The position of chair was subsequently rotated at each meeting A brief agenda was proposed, though there seemed like little in the way of a formal structure to amend or add to it, which had the affect of muddling parts of the discussion as issues bled into each other (Throughout the occupation however many meetings were based around the negotiations and as such had little need for a particular agenda as there tended to only be a single issue to discuss).
Additionally, working groups of between 5-10 people were set up for organisation of social events, media and negotiation with the administration with the aim of creating a balance between efficiency and democratic accountability.
WORKING GROUPS
The groups had been given a level of autonomy which was appropriate considering that most of their tasks had already been decided on by the general meeting: Their mandate was largely to implement these decisions and work out the details. If a group went beyond this mandate it could be called to account at the next meeting.
INITIAL MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT FOLLOWED BY GENERAL MEETING
This meeting exposed some of the manipulative tactics that would be repeatedly employed by management throughout the negotiations. Those present complained of obfuscation, attempts to divert the issue and requests by the management for meetings with small groups of delegates in order to create hierarchies and manufacture splits and tensions within the occupation.
Once management left a General meeting was held in which it was agreed that a working group would be mandated to meet with management to discuss proposals. That group would however have no power to come to an agreement with management before it relayed the results of that meeting to the rest of the occupation who could then vote. Additionally, concerns were raised about the modes of interaction with management: Negotiations from that point on should avoid becoming personal and there should be no sign of the occupation making any concessions or taking steps back before the demands were met satisfactorily.
FIRST NIGHTS SOCIAL AND RELATED SITUATIONS
It had been decided in an earlier meeting to bill the first night as a ‘social’ rather than a party on the grounds of keeping the demands focused. As it happened, this distinction didn’t seem to have a substantial influence on the events of the nights.
The working group for the social organised a flyer and put boards in front of anything particularly fragile or expensive (the hall contained a grand piano) as well as putting up a few signs asking people not to smoke indoors etc in response to a request in the general meeting. A PA was found in the building which meant people could DJ with mp3 players reducing the need for extra equipment.
The first night was fairly sparsely attended aside from the occupiers, though various groups came and went during the night.
The socials were not only a chance to celebrate or revel in our position, they were also intrinsically political and quite possibly a factor in the managements decision-making. They asserted that the building was no longer under the control of the university authorities and that it was our space to hold whatever events we chose, whenever we chose. Additionally they illustrated the fact that what was happening was not simply a political demonstration aimed at achieving concessions from authority, but an autonomous, revolutionary space in and of itself. The building was active almost 24 hours a day and come 6pm we didn’t lay down our ideologies and go to our beds, rather we turned a symbol of power and bureaucracy into a plateau on which to enact and experiment with our desires and passions with a minimal level of external suppression.
THE FIRST MORNING: ESCALATION
At 7am, before any of the office workers arrived barricades were erected on both of the staircases with signs stating that whilst students were welcome to pass through, anyone in an administrative position was forbidden.
Several hours in we discovered after debating whether to allow a music department ‘Masterclass’ to go ahead in the main hall that all events for that room had already been rescheduled by the various departments.
By placing the barricades the situation was immediately escalated and the dynamic of the building was radically altered: Upon walking through the front door you were confronted with a physical barrier, manned at all times by at least two people
FINAL NEGOTIATIONS
During the final day things moved exceptionally fast with meetings been called almost hourly and by mid afternoon all demands had been met by management with these gains concreted for a minimum of ten years. A student vote to continue the programme at the end of the ten year period was also instated.
However the system of bringing the administrations response back to the occupation before making any decisions broke down on this final occasion. The perceived victory was announced immediately and there was little opportunity to thoroughly debate the content of the response. As it stands, the final response from the administration contains various ambiguous and vague statements, some of which potentially undermining the whole issue of the funding of the scholarships.
This was immediately followed by a spirited and freshly informed ‘anarchism vs. socialism’ debate and a talk. Much of what went on at the victory party is probably best kept out of print but by morning the building was cleared and vacated.
FINAL THOUGHTS
To win such a concrete victory in just 29 hours is a fantastic success and hopefully vindicates direct action as a viable tactic in many situations. However, the revolutionary spirit of the occupation, which seemed to grow as time marched on, felt neutered by the sudden cease in activities. The difference in atmosphere between the planning meeting the night before the occupation (which was characterised by poor organisation and paranoid accusations of sabotage) and even the first afternoon was staggering. Networks of trust and mutual aid began to appear and individual attempts to take charge tended to lessen.
The occupation was far from utopia, and had it lasted longer it is likely that further difficulties would have been encountered, perhaps even complete splits. That we did not have time to deal with these occurrences was in some ways more disheartening than the potential challenges themselves.
Additionally, the demands we had were ultimately reasonable and easily quantified. That the administration gave in so readily could be read entirely as testament to the strength of our action, or perhaps that ultimately it wasn’t that much of a concession for them to make. The situation never reached the stage where we had to deal with the police or other authorities
Regardless of the specifics of our situation, through the smokescreen of student politics and bureaucratic wrangling, some of us caught a glimpse of an emancipatory, direct form of participation that could be taken up and manipulated to transform the very fabric of our existence.
On Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 around 50 students from Goldsmiths entered Deptford Town Hall - the main administration building for the university - and declared it occupied.
The occupiers demanded that two scholarships should be awarded to students of Al-Quds University in Palestine and the upper floors of the building were converted into a free space in which discussions, talks, music and parties would be hosted.
Autonomy & Solidarity were involved in the occupation and supported the demands made. As anarchists the question of becoming involved with campaigns of national liberation often presents a difficulties. The groups involved tend to propose a simple rearrangement of existing authoritarian structures, which is incompatible with anarchism’s rejection of the state and its hierarchy. However, we viewed the Palestine Twinning Campaign’s scholarships struggle as legitimate as it represents solidarity with people (the students) rather than ideologies (Hamas, Palestinian nationalism).
It was clear from the outset that engaging in direct action – in this case an occupation - would raise further issues. The widened discussion that ensued once inside the building took the action beyond solidarity with a besieged people; questioning what constitutes property, what a real democracy would look like and the feasibility of these processes within the status quo. For all of us in Britain, the situation in Palestine is abstracted, a situation we have little power to alter. During the 2 days of occupation, aspects of our reality were altered: we were offered a glimpse of new ways of organising our reality. These methods are transferable to other aspects of our lives: in school, in our workplaces and in our local neighbourhoods.
This leaflet attempts to evaluate tactics and modes of organisation that were used, in the hope of providing a model for how the situation could be repeated, and our mistakes learned from. The occupation was a collective effort: everyone present was directly involved both in the decision making process and the implementation of what was decided and the failures that followed. We are experimenting: there is no absolute method so what is important now is to prevent the events of those few days becoming an alienating myth. Throughout the occupation, despite the fact that there were disagreements and tactical errors which occurred on all sides, there was a sense of companionship as well as a general valuation of what seemed to be an extremely democratic decision process. We made friends, acquaintances and compañeros and hope that the relationships built within that space can withstand (and of course respond to!) critical evaluation.
PLANNING
Prior to the occupation th to carry out reconnaissance. this, the expeditions gave us an idea of entrances and exits, fortifiable areas (in our case, the two staircases in the building), the existence and location of facilities such as toilets, kitchens, offices and boardrooms. Additionally we made sure access would be possible: Deptford Town Hall has a key card system that only works with certain cards (held by staff and students who use the building for lectures).
On the eve of the occupation a planning meeting was held: This was the first meeting the majority of A&S had been present at and as such we are not sure how typical it was of previous meetings though it struck many as poorly and undemocratically facilitated. Processes were muddy, especially when it came to setting an agenda and electing a chair. As the meeting continued this observation was hard to dispel; for example the chair appeared to answer questions directly rather than facilitating the discussion. This may have been one of the reasons such a large, diverse and committed group were not as multi-vocal as one would expect. The suggestion for an amended flyer (NOT an additional demand, which was a separate issue) seemed to be grossly misrepresented: The vote that was held seemed completely unrelated to what we had attempted to propose. Were we just there to be the muscle, with no voice in the proceedings? While the meeting was disheartening, thankfully, it was to become the exception rather than the rule.
ENTRY AND INITIAL ACTIVITIES
The assumption made was that entering the building initially would not be a problem: locking it down in anticipation of our arrival could have caused just as much disruption as our action and we assumed the university would shy away from heavy handed measures at least in the immediate future. With that in mind we gathered as a group of between 30-40 before moving to Deptford Town Hall.
Upon entering we received no resistance and quickly moved to the top of the stairs before dropping banners from the balcony and windows. A flyer was immediately issued stating that the initial occupation was successful.
There was not a clear plan as to which rooms to take control of immediately and we consolidated our position on the balcony, the large hall at the top of the stairs and the small kitchen. In hindsight more effort should have been made to secure other rooms as security quickly locked many leaving us with fewer options later on. Due to the nature of the occupation, damage to the building was not considered suitable, though in another situation somehow blocking the locks (with superglue?) could solve the problem of an understaffed occupation, allowing the rooms to be entered later after discussion had been held.
After an hour or so, a music student appeared saying she had a recital booked for the large hall. It was spontaneously decided to let this go ahead and she performed with minimal disruption.
FIRST GENERAL MEETING
The initial meeting was far better organised than the planning one held the night before. The vast majority of individuals involved in the occupation were present and someone was nominated to chair the meeting. The position of chair was subsequently rotated at each meeting A brief agenda was proposed, though there seemed like little in the way of a formal structure to amend or add to it, which had the affect of muddling parts of the discussion as issues bled into each other (Throughout the occupation however many meetings were based around the negotiations and as such had little need for a particular agenda as there tended to only be a single issue to discuss).
Additionally, working groups of between 5-10 people were set up for organisation of social events, media and negotiation with the administration with the aim of creating a balance between efficiency and democratic accountability.
WORKING GROUPS
The groups had been given a level of autonomy which was appropriate considering that most of their tasks had already been decided on by the general meeting: Their mandate was largely to implement these decisions and work out the details. If a group went beyond this mandate it could be called to account at the next meeting.
INITIAL MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT FOLLOWED BY GENERAL MEETING
This meeting exposed some of the manipulative tactics that would be repeatedly employed by management throughout the negotiations. Those present complained of obfuscation, attempts to divert the issue and requests by the management for meetings with small groups of delegates in order to create hierarchies and manufacture splits and tensions within the occupation.
Once management left a General meeting was held in which it was agreed that a working group would be mandated to meet with management to discuss proposals. That group would however have no power to come to an agreement with management before it relayed the results of that meeting to the rest of the occupation who could then vote. Additionally, concerns were raised about the modes of interaction with management: Negotiations from that point on should avoid becoming personal and there should be no sign of the occupation making any concessions or taking steps back before the demands were met satisfactorily.
FIRST NIGHTS SOCIAL AND RELATED SITUATIONS
It had been decided in an earlier meeting to bill the first night as a ‘social’ rather than a party on the grounds of keeping the demands focused. As it happened, this distinction didn’t seem to have a substantial influence on the events of the nights.
The working group for the social organised a flyer and put boards in front of anything particularly fragile or expensive (the hall contained a grand piano) as well as putting up a few signs asking people not to smoke indoors etc in response to a request in the general meeting. A PA was found in the building which meant people could DJ with mp3 players reducing the need for extra equipment.
The first night was fairly sparsely attended aside from the occupiers, though various groups came and went during the night.
The socials were not only a chance to celebrate or revel in our position, they were also intrinsically political and quite possibly a factor in the managements decision-making. They asserted that the building was no longer under the control of the university authorities and that it was our space to hold whatever events we chose, whenever we chose. Additionally they illustrated the fact that what was happening was not simply a political demonstration aimed at achieving concessions from authority, but an autonomous, revolutionary space in and of itself. The building was active almost 24 hours a day and come 6pm we didn’t lay down our ideologies and go to our beds, rather we turned a symbol of power and bureaucracy into a plateau on which to enact and experiment with our desires and passions with a minimal level of external suppression.
THE FIRST MORNING: ESCALATION
At 7am, before any of the office workers arrived barricades were erected on both of the staircases with signs stating that whilst students were welcome to pass through, anyone in an administrative position was forbidden.
Several hours in we discovered after debating whether to allow a music department ‘Masterclass’ to go ahead in the main hall that all events for that room had already been rescheduled by the various departments.
By placing the barricades the situation was immediately escalated and the dynamic of the building was radically altered: Upon walking through the front door you were confronted with a physical barrier, manned at all times by at least two people
FINAL NEGOTIATIONS
During the final day things moved exceptionally fast with meetings been called almost hourly and by mid afternoon all demands had been met by management with these gains concreted for a minimum of ten years. A student vote to continue the programme at the end of the ten year period was also instated.
However the system of bringing the administrations response back to the occupation before making any decisions broke down on this final occasion. The perceived victory was announced immediately and there was little opportunity to thoroughly debate the content of the response. As it stands, the final response from the administration contains various ambiguous and vague statements, some of which potentially undermining the whole issue of the funding of the scholarships.
This was immediately followed by a spirited and freshly informed ‘anarchism vs. socialism’ debate and a talk. Much of what went on at the victory party is probably best kept out of print but by morning the building was cleared and vacated.
FINAL THOUGHTS
To win such a concrete victory in just 29 hours is a fantastic success and hopefully vindicates direct action as a viable tactic in many situations. However, the revolutionary spirit of the occupation, which seemed to grow as time marched on, felt neutered by the sudden cease in activities. The difference in atmosphere between the planning meeting the night before the occupation (which was characterised by poor organisation and paranoid accusations of sabotage) and even the first afternoon was staggering. Networks of trust and mutual aid began to appear and individual attempts to take charge tended to lessen.
The occupation was far from utopia, and had it lasted longer it is likely that further difficulties would have been encountered, perhaps even complete splits. That we did not have time to deal with these occurrences was in some ways more disheartening than the potential challenges themselves.
Additionally, the demands we had were ultimately reasonable and easily quantified. That the administration gave in so readily could be read entirely as testament to the strength of our action, or perhaps that ultimately it wasn’t that much of a concession for them to make. The situation never reached the stage where we had to deal with the police or other authorities
Regardless of the specifics of our situation, through the smokescreen of student politics and bureaucratic wrangling, some of us caught a glimpse of an emancipatory, direct form of participation that could be taken up and manipulated to transform the very fabric of our existence.
Sunday 22 February 2009
United Libertarian Block @ Anti-Fees Demo - 25/02/09 - Meet at Russell Square, 12pm
* SCRAP ALL FEES - FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL
* A LIVING GRANT FOR EVERY STUDENT
* EDUCATION NOT PROFIT
These are the aims of the Libetarian Block at Wednesday's anti-fees demo and A&S supports them wholeheartedly. We believe that now more than ever the barrier between ‘students’ and ‘workers’ is visibly false: we support ourselves by working dead end jobs all summer, bar work in the evenings, working on our weekends, waiting to enter the marketplace with little chance of a graduate job and thousands of pounds of debt. We are workers now and we’ll be workers when we graduate.
Demanding greater funding for education doesn’t mean we have revised our feelings towards a) capitalism or b) the state. Capitalism is a war of all against all, where one person’s success can only come at the cost of another person’s loss. The role of the state is to prevent the losers from remonstrating with the successful. Making a demand of either is pointless unless we recognise we never gain anything as a class without backing this up with action. So we say:
*DIRECT ACTION GETS THE GOODS – look to the 27 university occupations that have swept the nation
*CAPITALISM NOT WELCOME ANYWHERE – not just in education
*KEEP ORGANISING OUTSIDE OF THE STATE – it isn’t neutral, we need to build and maintain our own structures, for the resistance today and democratic control tomorrow
We welcome everyone who recognises that capitalism is a daily crisis and that action must be taken
MEET UP AT 12PM, CORNER OF THORNHAUGH ST AND RUSSEL SQUARE - LOOK FOR THE RED 'N' BLACK FLAGS
First Communique 6/02/09 - Preparation for the Occupation
Dear fellow Goldsmiths student,
You may have heard talk of a proposed occupation of a university building right here in Goldsmiths. The occupation – which now looks almost certain to happen – has been called by a variety of groups, including the Socialist Workers’ Party, the Palestinian Society, the Middle East Society and the Women's Society. The intention is to exert further pressure on the College Warden so that he grants full scholarships to two Palestinian students from Al-Quds University on the West Bank, with whom Goldsmiths is twinned.
A&S support the occupation, not only out of solidarity with the plight of Palestinian university students - who suffer incredible hardships in their attempts to educate themselves in a warzone - but also because the act of occupying in itself is worthwhile as a means of defending students and asserting our interests.
Goldsmiths will only be the latest in a wave of university occupations which have spread the length and breadth of the country in recent weeks, from LSE to Strathclyde. The success rate of this occupation movement in achieving its demands has been impressive; it demonstrates the efficiency of occupation as a tactic. Indeed, it seems likely that the Warden and Senior Management Team will eventually quit dragging their feet and grant these scholarships.
However, as grand of a victory as this would be, A&S do not consider these two scholarships to be the be all and end all of the matter. Unfortunately, Palestine is not the only conflict zone in the world, and neither are Palestinians the only ones who are denied access to a decent education. Here in Britain, 6th formers brace themselves for the raising of the top-up fees maximum cap from £3,000/year to £10,000/year, whilst non-EU students at Goldsmiths from October onwards are looking at annual course charges of up to £13,700! This fact alone discriminates against all but the most privileged.
A&S call for a renewed discussion about Goldsmiths’ poor record on fees, both for British and international students. We demand to know whether Goldsmiths – who lobbied Parliament to introduce the £3,000/year fees cap before introducing it on campus - will do the same with the £10,000/year cap. We also wish to know, in an institution that’s so confident in its apparent lack of prejudice, why it is that economic factors are considered valid recourse with which to deny education to willing but poor students.
A final point: with the occupation now imminent, we would like to cast the widest possible net and include as many Goldsmiths students as possible in its realisation. This must not just be another example of “the usual suspects” fulfilling their own fantasies and predetermined political agendas. This occupied space is for all of us as Goldsmiths students, and we want you to participate in determining its usage. We’re planning film nights, free food kitchens, workshops; what ideas do you have? With your help, it won’t just be another left wing talking shop. It is for this reason that we say:
ALL TO THE OCCUPATION PLANNING MEETING!
TUESDAY 10TH FEB - 5.15PM - RHB142
You may have heard talk of a proposed occupation of a university building right here in Goldsmiths. The occupation – which now looks almost certain to happen – has been called by a variety of groups, including the Socialist Workers’ Party, the Palestinian Society, the Middle East Society and the Women's Society. The intention is to exert further pressure on the College Warden so that he grants full scholarships to two Palestinian students from Al-Quds University on the West Bank, with whom Goldsmiths is twinned.
A&S support the occupation, not only out of solidarity with the plight of Palestinian university students - who suffer incredible hardships in their attempts to educate themselves in a warzone - but also because the act of occupying in itself is worthwhile as a means of defending students and asserting our interests.
Goldsmiths will only be the latest in a wave of university occupations which have spread the length and breadth of the country in recent weeks, from LSE to Strathclyde. The success rate of this occupation movement in achieving its demands has been impressive; it demonstrates the efficiency of occupation as a tactic. Indeed, it seems likely that the Warden and Senior Management Team will eventually quit dragging their feet and grant these scholarships.
However, as grand of a victory as this would be, A&S do not consider these two scholarships to be the be all and end all of the matter. Unfortunately, Palestine is not the only conflict zone in the world, and neither are Palestinians the only ones who are denied access to a decent education. Here in Britain, 6th formers brace themselves for the raising of the top-up fees maximum cap from £3,000/year to £10,000/year, whilst non-EU students at Goldsmiths from October onwards are looking at annual course charges of up to £13,700! This fact alone discriminates against all but the most privileged.
A&S call for a renewed discussion about Goldsmiths’ poor record on fees, both for British and international students. We demand to know whether Goldsmiths – who lobbied Parliament to introduce the £3,000/year fees cap before introducing it on campus - will do the same with the £10,000/year cap. We also wish to know, in an institution that’s so confident in its apparent lack of prejudice, why it is that economic factors are considered valid recourse with which to deny education to willing but poor students.
A final point: with the occupation now imminent, we would like to cast the widest possible net and include as many Goldsmiths students as possible in its realisation. This must not just be another example of “the usual suspects” fulfilling their own fantasies and predetermined political agendas. This occupied space is for all of us as Goldsmiths students, and we want you to participate in determining its usage. We’re planning film nights, free food kitchens, workshops; what ideas do you have? With your help, it won’t just be another left wing talking shop. It is for this reason that we say:
ALL TO THE OCCUPATION PLANNING MEETING!
TUESDAY 10TH FEB - 5.15PM - RHB142
What the hell is A&S anyway?
A&S is a social anarchist group that believes the power of the capitalist elite – the tiny fraction of humanity that owns the property and wields the economic power - is the single biggest obstacle to organising society completely democratically, where we take part in all the decisions made about our lives.
As long as you have capitalism you’ll have division between the elite and its allies, and everybody else. This is due to the basic conflict between the employer (who wants worker to work for as much as possible being paid as little as possible) and worker (who wants to work for as little as possible being paid as much as possible,). Until this fight is won by the majority we will live in social chaos – working jobs we don’t want to buy things we don’t need whilst the planet dies from this degenerative disease they call ‘profit driven expansion’.
However, all forms of illegitimate power must be opposed, or the fight against capitalism will just put in power another set of rulers: it is no good having a socialist boss rather than a capitalist boss, we need to have control ourselves. So A&S will be run democratically, which necessarily means it will be run equally, with all members having the same say in our group’s path.
As long as you have capitalism you’ll have division between the elite and its allies, and everybody else. This is due to the basic conflict between the employer (who wants worker to work for as much as possible being paid as little as possible) and worker (who wants to work for as little as possible being paid as much as possible,). Until this fight is won by the majority we will live in social chaos – working jobs we don’t want to buy things we don’t need whilst the planet dies from this degenerative disease they call ‘profit driven expansion’.
However, all forms of illegitimate power must be opposed, or the fight against capitalism will just put in power another set of rulers: it is no good having a socialist boss rather than a capitalist boss, we need to have control ourselves. So A&S will be run democratically, which necessarily means it will be run equally, with all members having the same say in our group’s path.
You can join our Facebook group here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)