Like Pigs to the Slaughter

Posted on February 5, 2008February 6, 2008 by AL Puppy

Like Pigs to the Slaughter…

“Like lambs to the slaughter they fall at your feet. ..”
Blood and Roses: Your Sin is Your Salvation

Before I start, please comment on the following:

1.Has anyone here read Ben Frank’s book ‘Rebel Alliances’ about British anarchism?

2. Was there, as Chris suggests below, a move from the ‘nihilism’ of Toxic Grafity, through the ‘positivism’ of KYPP, to the (class struggle) aanarchism of Pigs for Slaughter?

3. There is no third way.

In a comment to “Lots more photos up in the photo gallery…”, Chris said:

i’d say a zine such as Pigs for Slaughter was in it’s own way a lot MORE important than 99% of the ‘anarcho-punk’ bands as it lit the torch for the cross-pollenisation between the anarcho-punk scene and Class War etc, from which came an increase in militancy articulated in such things as the Stop the Citys and bands becoming involved with industrial struggles (Miners, Print Workers…) creating a blood-line to the anti G8 type protests of today.

In fact, you could almost say that out of all the thousands of fanzines that were ever published after Sniffing Glue there are three which most encapsulate the trinity of stages the ‘underground/alternative/DIY’ punk (as opposed to the more ‘commercial’ bands adequately represented by the mainstream music press) scene went through:Toxic Grafitti = Nihilism
Kill Your Pet Puppy = Positivism
Pigs For Slaugher = Anarchism

In his book ‘Rebel Alliances: The means and ends of contemporary British anarchism’, published by AK Press in 2006, Ben Franks makes a strong argument that the core of the British anarchist tradition is class-struggle anarchism and has written about ‘Bristish Anarchism and the Miners Strike’ here http://www.londonclasswar.org/britishanarchism.php

Ben is a lecturer at Glasgow University’s Dumfries Campus (where I am a post-grad student) and has also written about the film The Wicker Man – filmed here nearly 40 years ago -see http://www.cc.gla.ac.uk:443/newstaff/b_franks.htm

In Rebel Alliances, Ben was not very ‘positive’ on anarcho-punk saying :

“its vision was often closer to that of pacifist individualism than to radical anti-capitalism. For this reason it was derided as merely ‘prosaic laissez-faire individualism’. On other occasions it promoted ‘an anarcha-feminist sensibility alongside forceful anti-militarism.’. The sizeable following around Crass became interested in environmental direct action, animal rights, vegetarianism and veganism .“The anarchist-punk agent for change was unclear. On the few occasions it was explicitly elucidated it seemed to reject class, and appeal to the same great hope of the ‘60s hippie culture-’youth’. As a result of such shared characteristics, it is no surprise that punk met a similar fate to that of the 1960s (counter) cultures it originally despised. It became a youth orientated marketing niche, subsumed into the mainstream of corporate business. Punk clothing and records could be found in companies owned by multinationals.”.

But as he said in a comment to my ‘Archaeology of Punk’ rant here on KYPP, these quotes are selective:

I think that one of my points about punk was that it was too diverse to be associated with any single political movement or culture, although I do acknowledge that it in many of its major forms it shares core features with anarchism. I also used substantially more sources, both primary and secondary, in my account than your posting suggests. Sorry I missed you at the pub. Maybe another time.
All the best
Ben

At some point, if Ben is not too pissed off with me, I will do an interview with him for KYPP.

Finally, here is what old school anarchist Albert Meltzer (who I met along with Stuart Christie, Ronan Bennett and Iris Mills in 1979) had to say about punks trashing the Wapping Autonomy Centre:

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/meltzer/sp001591/angels21.html
Almost simultaneously the other rotating group had decided, with other groupings, to set up a new Centre in East London. I had not myself been involved in the building of either Centre, being immersed in the new wave of industrial activity, in Black Flag, the Anarchist Black Cross and the changes in Spain following the death of Franco. But they affected me considerably, and by the time 121 was being squatted I had committed myself both to it and to an entirely different venture, the Autonomy Club in Wapping. It was Ronan Bennett’s brainchild. Ever the optimist, I hoped it would take off, against reasonable expectations and my own expressed judgment.Iris Mills and Ronan put a tremendous amount of work into funding, finding and then building and decorating the place. Ronan, possibly misled by the backing the Persons Unknown had received, which numerically might have been about the same as that of the Republican Clubs of Belfast, not unreasonably thought at least one club on those lines could be established. In some capital cities on the Continent there are up to a dozen anarchist clubs or centres.

But the amount of committed support was limited. Ronan decided to appeal for support from the punk anarchists, then a new phenomenon, saying the punks would pass anyway and would be useful for the time it was around. The punk support, especially from followers of Crass and Poison Girls, was substantial. Punk has lasted a couple of decades, long outlasting the proposed club. With the punks’ money came the punks, and in the first week they had ripped up every single piece of furniture carefully bought, planned and fitted, down to the lavatory fittings that had been installed by Ronan from scratch, and defaced our own and everyone else’s wall for blocks around. In the excitement of the first gigs where they could do as they liked, they did as they liked and wrecked the place. Loss of club, loss of money, loss of effort. End of story. Ronan was not unnaturally disheartened and returned to even more chaotic Northern Irish politics.

23 comments

Chris
February 5, 2008 at 10:31 pm

To be honest, I would 100% agree with Ben Franks’ assessment of the ‘anarcho-punk’ scene.

And anarchism IS ‘class struggle’. From its’ origins in the 1800s till present, to paraphrase Martin Wright “class struggle is the lifeblood – without class struggle there’s nothing but posing”.

It was only within the ‘anarcho-punk’ milieu that it WAS ever anything else: this perhaps being one of the reasons for the diversity and vibrancy of the punk scene.

As such I feel it is erroneous to go down that route and analyse that aspect to any great extent. Anarcho-punk was never really about ‘anarchism’ – maybe the squatting scene in Berlin or Holland in the 1970s was but I don’t really think there ever was a parallel here – and in any case, to be dialectic about it; counter culture is not ‘class strugge’ per se, as it is engaged in at will, rather than imposed from above.

It is a very interesting topic of debate and one I could ponder endlessly but I think i’ll stick to the music otherwise i’ll never get off this bloody site!
Chris
February 5, 2008 at 10:38 pm

“Ronan was not unnaturally disheartened and returned to even more chaotic Northern Irish politics.”

and, errr… being a restaurant critic for The Independant and successful author by the time Meltzer published his autobiography 😉
luggy
February 5, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Think the whole idea of Wapping wasn’t thought out properly from the outset. They needed the punk gigs to pay the rent. Social clubs survive from bar profits but trying to set one up in a old warehouse without a licence wasn’t too clever.
alistairliv • Post Author •
February 6, 2008 at 9:51 am

The original plan for an Anarchist Centre was to get a drinks license by joining the ‘Working Mens Clubs’ (not proper title) association and to have a more central location, but the practicalities meant it didn’t happen.

If it hadn’t been for the money from Bloody Revolutions/ Persons Unknown even the Wapping centre would not have got off the ground.

I don’t think any of us who were involved (I was not an active participant) had any idea that there were hundreds of punks with a vague interest in ‘anarchy’ who would turn up for a gig at Wapping. I was about the youngest (aged 20) person involved – but I’d never been to a Crass gig and until I met Tony, Val and Brett had never met an ‘anarchist punk’.
betab
February 6, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Strange this trying to pin an incredibly diverse experience down to one thing – politics or not. My experience was that it was just a musical articulation of all the various stuff that was going on. Everything was about exploring and connecting, whether through the peace movement, communes and intentional communities, trying to figure out the relation of reality to to religion/spirituality, to creativity of all forms music performance, poetry and just plain making a pain in the arse of yourself to any form of authority that had its head up its own backside.

The past I despised was not of previous counter-cultures but of what corporate rock had become – a monster of distant spectacles put on for the amusement of the plebian hordes.

I think that looking for the particular agent of change is a red herring – the realisation of new social movment theories in the 1980s was that political agency can be and is decentred – so the failure of al lack of principal agent does not invalidate the notion of a movment itself as haveing agency – it’s just a lot harder to destroy.

Hence as far as I’m concerned the continuation of stuff like kypp – Yes, commodity capitalism will always appropriate anything it can see a profit in, but that doesn’t invalidate people’s actions and activities. Culture is what is formed by doing stuff, not what is sold.

There – rant over. I’ll have to go and read Ben’s book properly now, Buggrit
Nic
February 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm

I’ve read Ben’s article (although not the book)…

In general, it paints a disingenuous portrait of what it deems to term ‘individualist anarchism’, a portrait supported by unsubstantiated attributes used to label human beings…
For example, it makes blanket and biased pronouncements (supported by textual references to other equally biased pronouncements) on what
‘individualist anarchists’ actually do – refusing to take into account both the wide-ranging spectrum of actions and perceptions held by human beings and also the subtle nuances of behaviour. Indeed, this example is symptomatic of the far-reaching puritanical viewpoint of such people which cannot grasp the nature of each event being coloured by shades of grey rather than black and white…
Of course, such people may well suggest that this is ‘bourgeois’ thinking which says more about their own privileging of the physical and their own anti-intellectualism than any notions of ‘bourgeois’ thinking (whatever than is?) in others…

It also misunderstands what I would perceive to be the thrust behind people such as Crass’ desire to move beyond the divisive barriers created by the class structure…
Would it not be tryue to say that Capitalism in the late C20 and early C21 is characterised by power relationships rather than class? Capitalism itself seems to have largely left behind class as a defining factor and instead focused on its true purpose (efficiency), demonstrating once again how its fast response to social conditions keeps it one step ahead…

The text itself is hypocritical, employing a form of the hierarchical power structure which it purports to oppose in order to utilise text to suppress other voices (the vital importance of language in social relations)….

My own perception of ‘class struggle’-based anarchism is that it is a representation of Marxist ideology with certain tweaks, and is – as such – a wolf in sheeps clothing. It manifests itself in a repressive mode enforced by fear and violence (and the love of violence) which is designed to create new forms of hierarchical power structures which will benefit those who purport to oppose them…
The last thing anyone needs is more cops…

betab makes some very, very pertinent points (particularly on agents of change)…

The example Al gives about the Wapping centre demonstrates just how much Punk was originally merely a fashion-based movement centred around clothing, music and the advocacy of a lifestyle centred on adolescent desire: in this milieu, the ideas suggested by Crass et al were a distinct aberration, far from a norm…’Anarcho punks’ were a sub-cult within a sub-cult…

And, to think about what Al said, there is ALWAYS a third way…

I have to agree with Chris that this topic could blossom into a vast terriotry, so I’ll take a backseat and look forward to taking in the perceptions of other people (and add anything I can if it seems relevant)…
alistairliv • Post Author •
February 8, 2008 at 7:57 am

Ian Slaughter and Andy Martin fail to start a riot.. “Ian telephoned the local police to say that trouble was about to erupt [at the Centro Iberico]…

http://www.uncarved.org/music/apunk/autcent.html

The perils which afflict a revolutionary communist surrounded by punks can be most eloquently expressed when a cold night in 1982 is summoned from memory: six bands were to play that night and Conflict were top of the bill.

Myself and a colleague from The Wapping Autonomy Centre, Ian Slaughter, were irritated to the point of petrol bombs. These punks shouted about revolution as they punched the air with their fists, but frankly, the temporary displacement of a few nitrogen molecules isn’t going to drastically hasten the demise of Western capitalism.

Ian and I decided to give the revolution a little assistance since in England it is a truism that in order to effect political change you have to blow it up, bum it down and kick it until it breaks.

Ian telephoned the local police to say that trouble was about to erupt at that damned squatted school on Westbourne Park Road and would they come along with shields and truncheons, please? Meanwhile, I went round members of the audience to harass them into action. The police are about to arrive with the express purpose of the immediate cessation of festivities here, arm yourselves and prepare for battle (just like the Conflict lyrics).

By the end of the band’s set, I’d succeeded in the eventual arousal of at least two hundred angry, frustrated punks and skinheads so that as Ian’s signal they rushed towards the stairwell which led down to the playground.

The gig hall was on the fourth floor and I led my troops from the front. By the time l rushed out into the cold night air, I’d lost two thirds of my battalion and by the time I reached the front gates, three quarters of my remaining platoon had vanished inexplicably into the darkness.

I was beside myself with rage. lan saw what had happened and was so furious that he hurled a house brick at a police van that happened to pass at this point. The projectile made a beautiful arc through the indigo sky, caught the rays of an amber street light and resounded against the side of the van with a most satisfying ‘whump’ before it bounced off the metal and split into fragments on the pavement.

One of the policemen glanced out of the window briefly – then he turned his gaze back to the road ahead. The van didn’t even slow down. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the punk riot of Westbourne Park Road.

As the punks gradually rounded themselves up and sauntered merrily off down the road, Ian strutted after them, trotted alongside the assorted ragbag of reluctant rebels and grabbed various individuals at random.

“Come on you scum, you filth – fight! We can smash shop windows, wreck the town –come on! What’s the fucking matter with you?” he yelled in bitter frustration at the confused and bewildered glances of the punks. One young lad actually replied (and these are his exact words):
“No, sorry. I have so go to work tomorrow.”

I sat on the steps with my head in my hands. Yes, that was the punk riot of Westbourne Park Road.
Nick Hydra
July 4, 2009 at 10:13 am

What an absolute idiot Andy Martin is. So let’s get this straight there’s only one reasonable autonomous gig/ social space in London, and in the name of ‘revolution’ he decides to prompt a Police raid on the place.

This is exactly the kind of arsehole ‘provocation’ that makes me hate “revolutinary communists” more than I hate the right.

So essentially he sets up a load of punks to get the shit beaten out of them by riot police.

I’ve been in a riot, and even if the Iberico was full to capacity there wouldn’t have been enough bodies to do more than beat off the 1st wave of coppers who would then have counter attacked with overwhelming force, beaten everyone to fuck, smashed up the place and arrested loads of people.

Never mind the gig space going – people LIVED at the Iberico. Does anyone think a full scale battle with the Police would have resulted in ANYTHING but the Iberico being evicted?

So; 20 – 30 people homeless, nice bit of overtime and the chance to beat the shit out of loads of punks for the Riot Squad.

Initially there is a large group of people ready to defend the Iberico fom an “unprovoked attack” by the Police, which never actually materialised.

In Andy’s version this is due to a lack of commitment by the punks. In the real world, several people whilst running down the stairs probably thought to themselves “Hang on this is that idiot from the Apostles, I don’t trust him. Where are the police then? Oh right, it’s just Andy Martin being an idiot. Fuck this for a laugh.”

Andy Martin = Idiot
Punks = able to suss out said idiot.

Who was right in this situation?

Also note the phrase “I led my troops from the front.” “my troops”.

Fuck off Trotsky.

Does the phrase “Agent Provocatuer” mean anything to anyone?
andus
July 5, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Given that the story is true, how comes Ian Slaughter doesn’t get a good bollocking off you as well, especially since it was him who phoned the police. You’re very biased.
Chris
July 6, 2009 at 12:00 am

I, and I would imagine many others on here, came out with, and did, a lot of very stupid things back then.

I, and I would imagine Ian and many others on here, would probably rather a lot of this foolishness, from approx a quarter of a century ago, was just forgotten and not written about further.

NB: Whatever one’s opinion of Andy Martin it is rather misguided and disingenuous to accuse him of being an “Agent Provocatuer”.
andus
July 6, 2009 at 6:14 am

Exactly Chris, you took the words right out my mouth, 26 years ago, 1982, Calling Andy Martin a commie scumbag is absolutely hilarious, best joke I’ve heard all year. I remember one visit to Brougham Rd back in 1987, we were walking down Brougham and some punk sitting in the garden of I think 104 -102 called out to Andy. ‘Square boy,Oi Square boy’, but calling him a commie beats that.

An idiot and and ‘Agent Provocateur at the same time !!!!!
alistairliv • Post Author •
July 6, 2009 at 10:13 am

Context, context, context. If you go back to the top you will see that this thread was set in motion by Ben Frank’s book “Rebel Alliances” – a history of British anarchism published in 2006 and in which Ben was pretty dismissive of anarcho-punk.:

“its vision was often closer to that of pacifist individualism than to radical anti-capitalism. For this reason it was derided as merely ‘prosaic laissez-faire individualism’. On other occasions it promoted ‘an anarcha-feminist sensibility alongside forceful anti-militarism.’.

The sizeable following around Crass became interested in environmental direct action, animal rights, vegetarianism and veganism .“The anarchist-punk agent for change was unclear. On the few occasions it was explicitly elucidated it seemed to reject class, and appeal to the same great hope of the ‘60s hippie culture-’youth’.

As a result of such shared characteristics, it is no surprise that punk met a similar fate to that of the 1960s (counter) cultures it originally despised. It became a youth orientated marketing niche, subsumed into the mainstream of corporate business. Punk clothing and records could be found in companies owned by multinationals.”.

I take Chris’ point about forgetting but if Ben Franks (or George McKay who has also written a counterculture history which included Crass etc) only have one or two sources e.g. Stewart Home, Penny Rimbaud or Andy Martin to draw on, then the version of our history presented by those sources becomes the accepted version.

The complex and confusing actuality of ‘anarcho-punk’ as remembered here at KYPP then vanishes.
andus
July 6, 2009 at 10:35 am

Benjamin Franks analysis sounds about right to me, wasn’t he the president of the US once. Whatever anyone’s opinion or analysis of anarcho-punk is, I have critiques and praises for it. Ultimately I think its better that it existed than not. I would argue that anarcho-punk put British anarchism back on the map, Before anarcho-punk came along most people would have said ‘Anarchism whats that’. But what did the traditional anarchists achieve before the 60s counter culture and 80s anarcho-punks came along, Not a lot, people didn’t even know they existed. Like all X Presidents the man is talking shit.
Nick Hydra
July 6, 2009 at 11:49 am

Ok – apologies to Andy for not reading the post properly – it was Ian Slaughter who phoned the Police, but the point still stands really – irrespective of which of them did the dirty deed.

As for refering to Andy as a communist I refer you back to his quote “The perils which afflict a revolutionary communist surrounded by punks…” further up this page.

I would also take the general point that these things are best left in past, except that if that’s the case what’s the point of this website?

I was a sanctimonious little prick at times as I’m sure everyone else was, but I’m not posting comments on the web slagging off a scene which (whatever it’s faults), was open minded enough to put up with these kind of shennanigans from Ian and Andy and others like them, and provide an audience for the Apostles (even though I was really good mates with John X Apostle at the time, in my personal opinion they were really bad).

When I used the phrase “agent provocatuer” I should have put in inverted commas – I don’t think Andy Martin is/ was one, whatever I think of his opinions I am absolutely convinced that he believes in them completely. This however does not stop him being wrong…

I was merely trying to make the point that this is exactly the kind of behaviour that has in the past been used by the state to disrupt counter cultural movements (for want of a better phrase) like the Black Panthers/ AIM in the US, and used by the ‘hard left’ to disrupt more libertarian currents.

Obvious a couple of hundred punks getting pissed in an old school isn’t something that the state felt they needed to pay much attention to, but this doesn’t excuse Ian/ Andy’s actions.

I notice that none of the posts so far even though they disagree with my analysis, actually defend the actions I’m criticising.

Perhaps I should have used ‘vanguardist’… anyway, if nothing else it tells me not to post stuff on the web when half cut.
alistairliv • Post Author •
July 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Andus – Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was a fascinating character, but never became President of the US of A. I don’t know how old Ben Franks is, but I reckon closer to 30 than 300 years old.
andus
July 6, 2009 at 12:53 pm

I think ‘revolutionary communist’ was probably one of Mr Martins many ‘tongue in cheek’ remarks. I don’t think many people seem to understand Andy’s sense of humour in the stuff he often writes, but I dare say that’s not their fault. I remember The Apostles ‘rock against communism’ stuff and Dave Fanning refusing to have anything to do with it.
All the years I have known Mr Martin he has never had a good word to say about communists, that’s why I thought your post hilarious.
andus
July 6, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Oh shit, You’re quite right, Benjamin Franklin was never president, he was that scientist founding father chap, What the hell made me think he was a president. !!!!! I think I’m gonna go and lie down for a bit.

How embarrassing ! This is the end of the xxxxing world.
andus
July 6, 2009 at 1:34 pm

Anyway did any one else notice that Andy Roddick won 39 games in the Wimbledon final yesterday while Federer won 38 and was crowned champion, Outrageous ! Absolutely outrageous !
Chris
July 7, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Actually Andus, re the ‘Revolutionary Communist’ bit, I expect Andy wrote that as a reference to himself during that period as in the early days of The Apostles (and I would imagine his involvement with the Centro) he DID still describe himself as a communist. He was a former RCP member after all, as he’s written about before.
andus
July 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm

My apologies Chris. I stand corrected. I overlooked the fact that this event was in 1982, when Andy was going through his Communist period.

What happened to ‘John no last names’ comment anyway.
John No Last Name
July 7, 2009 at 4:05 pm

I took it down beacuse I didn’t feel like getting into an internet argument about something that was basically a work of fiction and an awfully long time ago.
Andy Martin
July 7, 2009 at 5:36 pm

The main problem here is that since all first class pitches in Britain were covered from 1960 onwards, spin bowlers have suffered significantly and it really has become a batsmen’s game. Throughout the previous 4 decades, the UK has been able to produce very few ‘great’ spin bowlers – we can think of Derek Underwood, John Embury, Phil Tufnell and Monty Panesar but that’s about it. After all, other than Panesar, just how many quality spinners (leg spinners, off spinners or slow left armers) are there on whom we could call for the national side?
Tony Puppy
July 8, 2009 at 10:14 pm

Andy Martin spindoctor! 😉