Unsurprisingly, a riot took place. According to The Independent the seeds of the riot had been sown "the night before when police surrounded a local high school where anti-capitalist protesters were staying, making dozens of arrests." On the day itself, trouble started when demonstrators tried to move from the square to the conference centre and found their way blocked. They were forced back onto the smart Avenyn shopping street. Barricades were built and set alight. Slabs were thrown at the police. Three protestors were shot, one critically (a young, brick-throwing Swede was filmed taunting the police seconds before being shot and critically injured).

Tony Blair condemned the riots: "Peaceful protest is an essential part of democracy. Violent protest is not, and there is no place in democracy for an anarchists' travelling circus that goes from summit to summit with the sole purpose of causing as much mayhem as possible."

Of course, no mention of the police actions of the previous days. Apparently the surrounding of a meeting place and attempts to forcefully enter a building by several hundred fully equipped and armed riot police has a place in a democracy, as are numerous other police acts of repression which took place in the days leading up to the protests. Needless to say, such actions are part of the reason why anarchists oppose the current system. "The State's behaviour is violence," pointed out Stirner, "and it calls its violence 'law'; that of the individual, 'crime.'"

The other, of course, is that "democracy" in practice means the rule by a few bureaucrats and politicians who obey the dictates of big business, regardless of what the majority wants. This is clearly seen from the EU conference itself.

Foot in Mouth strikes again!

Blair, the arch democrat, stated that "Their actions have nothing to do with anything other than a desire to cause violence that threatens the lives and livelihoods of innocent people." Unsurprisingly, he did not inform the waiting world how he knew this. He added that he "would like to send the clearest possible signal that such protests must not and will not disrupt the proper workings of democratic organisations."

Pretty good coming from a man elected by 1 in 4 of the electorate! If "democratic organisation" means "an organisation in which the decisions of the majority rule" then, clearly, Mr. Blair has no leg to stand on.

Firstly, the majority does not make the decisions in any state. At best the representatives elected by a majority make the decisions (under the circumstances dictated by the state bureaucracy and business interests of course). But, as Malatesta pointed out, "it is never the case that the representatives of the majority of the people are in the same mind on all questions; it is therefore necessary to have recourse again to the majority system and thus we will get closer still to the truth with 'government of the majority of the elected by the majority of the electors.'" This, he notes, "is already beginning to bear a strong resemblance to minority government." Thus the EU, never mind the British State, cannot be considered as a democratic organisation.

Secondly, of course, the EU is hardly a democratic organisation even in the narrow sense that Blair probably means. Take, for example, the Nice treaty. This was agreed at the last summit of EU leaders in December and aims to reform the EU's institutions to allow them to cope with an enlarged Union of up to 27 members. All 15 current members must ratify the treaty before it takes effect.

At Gothenburg the EU leaders agreed that the process of enlarging the EU into Eastern Europe must go ahead despite Ireland's shock rejection of the Nice Treaty on EU reform last week. "The Irish people's decision must be respected but it must not be allowed to hold up the process," German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said. Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern told the summit: "I want to make it absolutely clear that, in my view, the No vote should not be interpreted as a vote against enlargement." Without spelling out how he planned to overcome the 54-46 percent defeat, Ahern said Ireland needed an "extended period of reflection" before finding a mutually acceptable way forward.

Truly democracy in action! Little wonder more and more people are turning to what Blair calls "undemocratic anarchy."

"undemocratic anarchy"?

Tony Blair said governments had to fight the anarchists and their message with every means at their disposal. And what is our message? Simply that the words "democratic organisation" being used to describe a state is a contradiction. While anarchists reject government, we do not reject organisation. The difference is important. The only effective way to struggle and organise is non-hierarchically, for it has the active participation of all members of the collective unit, instead of their passively entrusting themselves to the authority of the supreme leaders. Any governing body is an impediment to the real organisation of the majority. Where a government exists, then the only really organised people are the minority which make up the government. It is they who rule, not (as claimed in democratic theory) the people. Thus a real "democratic organisation" would be an anarchist one as it would be run by and for its members.

Such self-managed organisations are run from below-upwards in a federal structure. Only a free association from below can allow everyone to participate in the struggle and in managing society. In centralised structures, power is at the top, in the hands of a few. In a federal structure, it lies at the bottom, in the hands of all.

It would be interesting to see Blair attack this goal of a self-managed society that lies at the heart of anarchism. To do so would mean to expose himself and his "democratic organisation" as hypocrites. So what do we "undemocratic" anarchists seek? Simply put, a free society of free individuals, one without classes, governments and other parasitic elites.

Such a society would be based on communes, which autonomous and federated at local, regional, national and global levels for the purpose of achieving goals of a general nature. These communes will be free associated and will be run directly by their members, in other words they will, in general, undertake to adhere to whatever general norms may decided by majority vote after free debate. The inhabitants of a Commune are to debate their internal problems among themselves. Whenever problems affecting an entire district or province are involved, it must be the federations of communes which deliberate and at every federal assembly these may hold all of the Communes are to be represented and their delegates will relay the viewpoints previously approved in their respective Communes. These delegates, as well as being mandated, will also be subject to recall (if they represent no one but themselves they will be replaced by those who do accurately rely their commune's position). On matters of a regional nature, it will be up to the Regional Federation to put agreements into practice and these agreements will represent the sovereign will of all the region's inhabitants. So the starting point is the individual, moving on through the Commune, to the Federation and right on up finally to the Confederation. Only in this way will government be abolished.

Within the commune, there will be various other self-managed groups for specific purposes. These will include producer groups. Workplaces will be run by their workers, directly, without bosses. Community centres, hospitals, schools and other community resources will be organised along similar lines.

Such a society would mean not only a massive increase in individual liberty, it would also mean that resources are used to meet people's needs rather than lining the pockets of the few. Thus a meaningful, decent and dignified life would be possible for all. That is why anarchists struggle against the current system. We want to replace it with something better.

Yes, indeed, unlike the EU, we "undemocratic" anarchists recognise that freedom means more than being allowed to pick your masters -- it means being able to control your own life, both as individuals and as part of groups, associations, communities and workplaces.

The present

Blair claimed that protesters' arguments were defective as globalism and free trade helped the world's poor. Thankfully the dispossessed and poor have such strong spokespeople in the form of transnational corporations, billionaires and other sections of the global elite. Thank god for coincidence.

Blair is presenting what has become a truism for the proponents of globalisation. They know the truth and so facts are irrelevant. So why have the ignorant masses, who just do not know what is good for them, rejected globalisation? (though, luckily for them, the likes of Blair will be in the position to force them to be free, no matter if they vote against it) Perhaps it has something to do with these kinds of facts?

On a global scale inequalities continue to mount as the neo-liberal project has unfolded. According to the UN Development Program, in 1997 the 20 percent of the world's people living in the wealthiest countries received 74 times as much income as the 20 percent in the poorest countries; up from a ratio of 60 to 1 in 1990, and 30 to 1 in 1960. This would be expected, as trade between two parties will benefit the stronger. Hardly a benefit for the poor to weaken their relative bargaining power in the "free" market.

In the United States, home of Blair's agenda, the median real wage is about the same today as it was 27 years ago. This means that the majority of the labour force has failed to share in the gains from economic growth over the last 27 years. That is drastically different from the previous 27 years, during which the typical wage increased by about 80% in real terms.

As for benefiting the poor, this usually means "increasing the rate of growth." Has increasing globalisation increased growth? The official data for the last two decades (1980-2000) tells the story. Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). From 1960-1980, output per person grew by an average, among countries, of 83%. For 1980-2000, the average growth of output per person was 33%. Mexico would have nearly twice as much income per person today if not for the growth slowdown of the last two decades; Brazil would have much more than twice its current per capita income.

Eighty-nine countries - 77%, or more than three-fourths - saw their per capita rate of growth fall by at least five percentage points from the period (1960-1980) to the period (1980-2000). Only 14 countries - 13% - saw their per capita rate of growth rise by that much from (1960-1980) to (1980-2000). In Latin America, GDP per capita grew by 75% from 1960-1980, whereas from 1980-1998 it has risen only 6%. For sub-Saharan Africa, GDP per capita grew by 36% in the first period, while it has since fallen by 15%.

Even where high growth rates were achieved, as in Southeast Asia, they were still better in the earlier period. The only regional exception to this trend was East Asia, which grew faster from 1980 to 1998 than in the previous period. But this is due to the quadrupling of GDP, over the last two decades, in China (which has 83% of the population of East Asia).

In short, there is no region of the world that the Bank or Fund can point to as having succeeded through adopting the policies that they promote - or in many cases, impose - in borrowing countries. (They are understandably reluctant to claim credit for China, which maintains a non-convertible currency, state control over its banking system, and other major violations of IMF/Bank prescriptions).

So, perhaps, the protestors may have a point.

The future

A North American anarchist wrote on IndyMedia (www.indymedia.org) contrasted Quebec and Gothenburg. He noted that in Quebec the area "where the protest was being held was a working-class town. The anarchists (www.tao.ca/~clac) groups went to door to door before the protests and did outreach. From what I heard people were very responsive. I saw the 'Black Block' marching down the street and people were cheering!" He wondered if the same had happened in Sweden. Good question.

It is clear that any protest and demonstration must have the support and understanding of the local community. If anarchists are isolated from that then their message will be distorted and fail to reach the people whose active participation will make real resistance and change possible. Anarchism was born in the people and it can only be healthy as long as it remains a thing of the people. As such, international protests, no matter how useful, are no substitute for spreading the anarchist message in our communities and workplaces. After the 1990 poll tax riots, for example, there exists anti-poll tax groups in most area which explained what had happened and why. Only this kind of organisation and discussion can ensure that the media does not distort what happens at demos.

Anarchists have been involved in organising the protests world wide. Sweden was no exception, with the syndicalist SAC taking part as well as organising a series of seminars and an international meeting with other syndicalist unions. The Swedish revolutionary union was listed by many in the media (such as the Independent and the Sunday Times) as part of the anarchist threat. The inevitable "who is involved" columns always make for amusing reading -- although most did manage to give the SAC as well as other libertarian groups a mention admit the inaccuracies.

The SAC has a real presence in Sweden. It is, for all its flaws, a working class organisation with locals in many towns. That is something that the UK anarchist movement could do well to repeat. The future of the anarchist movement has to involve returning to its working class roots and building on the obvious disillusionment that exists with New Labour and its neo-liberal agenda. Easier said than done, of course, but we would do well to learn a lesson from our Swedish comrades and consider how do we help to transform this cynicism with politics into a positive embrace of anti-parliamentarian, direct action based self-managed organisation in our communities and workplaces.