Last October Extinction Rebellion (XR) burst onto the scene with some impressive coordinated actions and a very slick social media game. Their message, branding, analysis and goals aren’t complex, and there have been no dearth of criticism or even outright hostility to this movement from radicals and anarchists. A lot of this criticism assumes that XR both share politics and goals with the radical wings that have been quick to dismiss them. It also seems to have a lack of understanding of what XR is actually trying to do.
Those of us who believe in direct action can understand the necessity of blocking roads and breaking laws. If the fash are marching down the road, or the coal trucks are leaving the open cast, then you need to get in their way and that involves blocking traffic. Extinction Rebellion however aren’t blocking the sites of climate destruction, they’re blocking busy roads in major cities simply to cause trouble. There’s no coal mines on North Bridge, so why block it? Extinction Rebellion isn’t a direct action campaign, it’s a campaign of civil disobedience, and there is a massive difference.
Direct action is about people taking power, destroying things that destroy them, actively challenging the state or corporations who threaten us and the planet, by targeting them at the source. Civil disobedience on the other hand is about disrupting society and the status quo until your demands are met. It is about causing so much trouble that the state is forced to act or negotiate. Blockading a port to disrupt timber imports is direct action. Blockading the streets outside Westminster to put pressure on the state to ban timber imports is civil disobedience.
Direct action is a key principle of anarchist politics, because it is not only a successful and empowering way of changing the world around you, but because it is also the end goal. We believe in people having the power to change their own lives, and not have the state rule on our behalf. Extinction Rebellion’s demands are for the state to be the main agent of change in regards to climate change and transforming society and the economy to reduce emissions. If you understand their goal then their strategy makes a lot more sense.
One criticism of XR I have seen time and again is that the group is both naive and too young or lacking in historical perspective. Apart from being patronising I think this comes with a certain level of naivety in itself. These actions and strategy aren’t coming out of nowhere, they come from a certain politics with a certain understanding of history and the state. We shouldn’t be surprised that a group that doesn’t believe in overthrowing the state is cosy with the police. Who’s going to stop people driving old diesels if there’s no police? It’s like being surprised that the Labour Party is contesting a general election. They were never against the state.
In less than a year XR has gone from about 100 academics signing a call out to 10,000 people blocking roads and risking arrest shutting down the major roads through London. While we can probably all think of ways which we could put 10,000 people up for breaking the law to better use, we need to be honest about why that hasn’t happened. XR have a relatively simple message, a simple solution, and an easy way to get involved. They have put a lot of effort into building their movement, with training and awareness raising and a steady escalation of action. Radicals in this country have very little understanding of how to build movements and momentum. We expect people to walk in off the streets ready and willing with the perfect politics and the dedication required. We need to be honest about how more liberal or reformist projects appeal to large numbers of people, and we need to work out how to emulate that success. The best rhetoric and the spikiest graphics aren’t worth anything if we don’t have the numbers to be a threat.
Extinction Rebellion is currently the most radical and effective environmental movement in the UK right now. That situation has only come about because of a massive hole where an anti-state anti-capitalist direct action movement should be. Liberals aren’t going to organise it for us. There is a massive need for something better but it’s not going to come out of slagging XR, or pretending that it was something it never was.
About the author:
I’ve been involved in anarchist struggle for long enough to be cynical but still involved enough to get excited by shiny new things. I’m a Scottish working class white male, so my writing will reflect that background. I welcome feedback and criticism.
Feature Image taken from Extinction Rebellion’s Facebook Page
8 thoughts on “Extinction Rebellion: Anarchists and radicals shouldn’t be surprised. We should be organised.”
This is a great piece, thank you. The difference between civil disobedience and direct action is poorly understood, and you explain it very clearly here. It is useful for understanding the tensions / communicative difficulties between XR and the anti-fracking movement, for example.
As an anarchist involved in XR it has done my heart good to read this, a welcome break from the usual dismissiveness and contempt. XR is a coalition of liberals and radicals, which may well implode for that reason, but while it lasts it’s a delight – an upsurge of organised energy, the likes of which is rarely seen in the UK. I for one would much rather be on the streets with them, than sitting at home nursing my ideological purity.
I handed out Extinction leaflets at marble arch and spoke to the public. 60 per cent of people were friendly and quite supportive especially seeing as its quite a new ‘thing’ for them. 10 per cent were aloof to the point of hostile. Peopke get what XR is talking about. Certainly within the ranks of protesters. I would not say we are naive. We are well informed by scientists and researchers
Erm, you missed out or third demand, that citizen’s assemblies oversee the necessary changes. This demand takes us past government, to direct, accountable decision making. Do a bit of research before you publish stuff..
Good piece. Personally find it exhausting and counterproductive when self proclaimed radicals whinge that groups with another approach are doing things wrong. It’s ultimately a hierarchical, elitist response to insist that everyone should follow your own model if they want a revolution to happen.
The notion that there is room for just one approach to solving vast problems with multiple causes is extremely naive. It belongs in the past. It derives more from an egotistical or perfectionist impulse than anything that’s genuinely helpful, ime.
The best movements united various groups acting on a broad spectrum of causes, using a broad spectrum of means. Anyone who *actually* knows their radical history knows this, the rest are frankly just splitting hairs.
A lot of ex-Claremont Road and RTS crew are part of this.. So, XR is not so naive or disconnected from protest history. I’ve also met X Greenham Common crew, and Ploughshares activists on this too. It is loaded with long-term activism.
All of the above, plus backing from The Guardian, and the BBC, and an extraordinarily easy ride from the Met. Why?
Because campaigning for the implementation of UN policy is not a rebellion. It’s controlled opposition serving the Technocratic agenda and ‘Globalisation 4.0’
All of the above, plus backing from The Guardian, and the BBC, a ridiculously easy ride from the Met., and why? Campaigning for the implementation of UN policy is not a rebellion.
to be fair I don’t think many anarchists are slagging off XR, but stating that without the struggle against climate being anti-capitalist, then there is no way it can be succesful.
on behalf of the slow burning fuse