The Angry Brigade: Documents and Chronology, 1967–1984

56 Pages·2012·0.4 MB·English

Various Authors
The Angry Brigade: Documents
and Chronology, 1967–1984
1985
Contents
Introduction .................................................. 3
AngryBrigadeCommuniques .................................. 11
FirstCommunique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Communique1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Communique2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Communique3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Communique4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Communique5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Communique6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Communique7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Communique8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Communique9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Communique10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Communique11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TwelfthCommunique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
ThirteenthCommunique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chronology ................................................. 24
1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
THERAIDSCONTINUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
TheStruggleContinues... ..................................... 51
TheBrigadeisgettingAngry—Again! (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
GettingAngrier! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
ArticlefromBlackFlag(Feb1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
AngryWords(1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
BibliographicalInfo ........................................... 55
2
Introduction
The eight libertarian militants on trial in the Old Bailey in 1972 who were
chosenbytheBritishStatetobethe‘conspirators’oftheAngryBrigade,found
themselvesfacingnotonlytheclassenemywithallitsinstrumentsofrepression,
butalsotheobtusityandincomprehension—whennotcondemnation—ofthe
organisedleft.
Describedas‘mad’,‘terrorists’,‘adventurists’,oratbestauthorsof‘gestures
of a worrying desperation’, the Angry Brigade were condemned without any
attempt to analyse their actions or to understand what they signified in the
generalcontextoftheclassstruggleincourse. Themeansusedtojustifythiswere
simple: bydefiningtheactionsoftheAngryBrigadeas‘terrorist’,andequating
this with ‘individualist’, the movement organisations — whose tendency is to
see the relationship between individual and mass as something in contrast —
neatlyexcludedthemfromtheirconcerns. Strangelyenoughthisattitudewasnot
limitedtothebroadleftbutwasalsoprevalentwithintheanarchistmovement,
wherestilltodaythereisatendencytoignoretheroleoftheindividualwithin
themass,andtheroleofthespecificgroupwithinthemassmovement. When
thequestionisraised,itisusuallyintheformofanabsolutecondemnation. For
example,inanarticleentitled‘Terrorism’(sic)weread: “Ifafewpeopletakeit
uponthemselvestoengagein‘ArmedStruggle’,thisspellsoutforus,besidesthe
usualpublichostility,policeharassment,arrestsanddefencecampaigns,theloss
ofallourpoliticallessons,gainsandstrengths.”(ClassWar)
TheproblemsencounteredbythecomradesoftheAngryBrigadeweresimilar
tothoseofothergroupsactiveatthetimewhohadrefusedthelimitsofstrug-
gle delineated by the State — the so-called limits of legality, beyond which the
repressive mechanism is is unleashed — and taken as their points of reference
thelevelofmassstruggle. ThisdecisionwasindefianceoftheState’sdefinition
ofthestruggle’sconfines. Italsodefiedthelimitsimposedbytheofficialwork-
ers’movementandtheextraparliamentaryorganisations,includingtheanarchist
movement. TheSymbioneseLiberationArmyintheUS,theRAFinGermany,the
firstoftheRedBrigadesinItaly,wereallisolatedbythe‘revolutionary’organisa-
tions,condemnedasagitators,provocateurs,individualistterroriststhreatening
thegrowthofthemassmovement.
On the attitude to the SLA, Martin Sostre was to write in America: “The de-
nunciationoftheSLAbythemovementpressisindistinguishablefromthatof
therulingclass. Eachleftorganisationseemstobecompetingwiththeothersfor
3
theirlegitimacybydenouncingtheSLA. . .Conspicuouslyabsentfromthedenun-
ciationsisanydiscussionoftheroleofarmedstruggle. Revolutionaryviolence
isseenassomethingrepulsivethatshouldbeshunned. Theleftmovementpress
wouldhaveonebelievethattooverthrowthecriminalrulingclasswehavemerely
toorganisemassmovements,demonstrationsofprotestandrepeatrevolutionary
slogans.”
One such paper in this country — the Trotskyist Red Mole — distinguished
itselfbycallingforsolidaritywiththecomradesaccusedintheAngryBrigade
trial. Withthefollowingreservation—“Itisnousetheorganisedleftcriticising
thepoliticsoftheAngryBrigade,unlesswealsorecognisewhyalotofpotentially
verygoodcomradesrejectthevariousleninistorganisations,andindeedresort
to bomb-throwing — until you are caught — by itself an easy option that does
not deal with the problem of helping to change the political understanding of
millionsofpeople.”UnderstandableenoughinviewoftheLeninistprogramme.
Butfromtheanarchistperspective? Wereadonthefrontpageofafairlyrecent
issueofFreedom,“EventhebombingcampaigncarriedoutbytheAngryBrigade
whichwastechnicallybrilliant. . .achievedabsolutelynothingbecause,indirect
contradictionwiththeirspokenideals,theyweretryingtoactasanelitevanguard
leaving ordinary people as passive spectators of their actions. Far from this
resultinginan‘awakening’ofthemasses’itresultedinafearofanarchismand
anarchistideaswhichhassignificantlycontributedtoourcurrentimpotence.”
Aswecansee,theoldpreoccupationpersists: thatofprotectingthemovement
(especiallytheanarchistone)fromthe‘adventurists’.
Infactthemovementoftheexploitedisnotandneverhasbeenonemonolithic
mass,allactingtogetherwiththesamelevelofawareness. Thestruggleagainst
capitalhasfromthebeginningbeencharacterisedbyadichotomybetweenthe
official workers’ movement on the one hand, with its various organisations —
parties, unions, etc, channelling dissent into a manageable form of quantitive
mediationwiththebosses. Andontheotherhand,theoftenlessvisiblemovement
of‘uncontrollables’whoemergefromtimetotimeinexplicitorganisationalforms,
but who often remain anonymous, responding at individual level by sabotage,
expropriation,attacksonproperty,etc,intheirrecuperablelogicofinsurrection.
Thereisnodistinctorfixeddividinglinebetweenthetwomovements. Theyoften
affecteachother,thesurgefromthebaseobligingthebigofficialorganisationsto
takeacertaindirection,ortheinverse,wherethelatterputabrakeonautonomous
struggles. Manyofthosewhomakeupthemassofunionmembership,arealso
extremelyactiveinextra-union(andbydefinitionextra-legal)formsofstruggle.
Eachside,however,hasitsownheritage: ontheoneaheritageofdealsandsell-
outs,thegreatvictoriesthatarerealdefeatsontheworkers’backs;ontheother,
a heritage of direct action, riots, organised insurrections or individual actions
4
whichalltogetherformpartofthefuturesocietywealldesire,andwithoutwhich
itwouldbenothingbutautopiandream.
A brief look at the development of the struggle in this country shows this
dualityquiteclearly. Theorganisedanti-capitalistmovementasweknowittoday
begantotakeshapeatthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury. Unliketheother
Europeancapitalistcountriesdevelopingatthesametime,therewasonlyaminor
communist influence both at organisational and ideological level. Traditional
Britishanti-intellectualismand‘commonsense’wereperhapsfundamentaltoa
morepragmaticformoforganisationwhichtooktheformoftradesunions. These
unionswerefromthestartreformist,althoughattimes,throughpressurefrom
thebase,someknewinsurrectionalmoments. Thechangestheunionsproposed
werehoweverusuallyintendedtocomeaboutusingnon-violentmethodswithin
theconstitutionallimits.
The most numerically significant of the early workers’ movements was the
Chartist one, which began around 1838. Recognised as the first modern mass
movement, thefirstChartistpetitionhadoneandaquartermillionsignatures.
Thisisclearlynotaqualitativeassessmentofactiveadherents. Eventhismove-
mentwasmarkedbytwoopposingcurrents: ontheonehandthosepreaching
non-violenceandtheconstitutionalroadtouniversalsuffrageasasolution;on
theother,thosewhospokeof(andcarriedout)rebellionandarmeddirectaction.
Theseweretheso-called‘moralforce’andthe‘physicalforce’. Theywerelinked
to the division between the tradesmen and unskilled workers and were never
neverreconciled,possiblyaccountingfortheshortdurationofthemovement.
During and immediately preceding this period there also existed forms of
autonomous revolt, such as that of the many artisans in the textile industry
who, under threat of losing their jobs or of being reduced to non-specialised
labourers,organisedinarmedgroups. Themostsignificantoftheseinsurrectional
movementswasthatknownasLuddism,whichtookplacebetween1810–1820.
During this period an immense amount of property was destroyed, including
vast numbers of textile frames redesigned to produce inferior, shoddy goods.
TheLuddites,takingthenameofNedLuddwhohadtakenasledgehammerto
theframesathand,organisedthemselveslocallyandevenfederallywithgreat
coordination,andinspiteofvastdeploymentsofsoldiersespeciallyinWestRiding
andYorkshirewherethemovementwasstrongest,generalisedinsurrectionwas
approachedonmorethanoneoccasion. AsJohnZerzan1pointsout,thiswasnot
thedespairingoutburstofworkershavingnootheroutlet,asalongtraditionof
unionismwasinexistenceamongtextileworkersandotherspriortoandduring
theLudditeuprisings.
1 JohnZerzan—CreationandItsEnemies:“TheRevoltAgainstWork”.MutualistBooks.
5
Intheearly1830’sitwastheturnofagriculturalworkersbecomecasuallabour-
ers to organise in the ‘army’ of Captain Swing, a mythical figure adopted as a
symbolofthefarmworkerswhoburnedricksandbarns,threateningtheiroppres-
sors—farmers,vicars,justicesofthepeacealike—withthesamefate. Wherethe
Ludditeswereextremelyorganised,theSwingmenlackedsecrecy. Nineteenof
themwerehanged(sixteenforarson),644jailed,and481deportedtoAustralia.
Alongwiththeinevitabledevelopmentintheforcesofrepressionintheform
ofpoliceandarmy,weseethedevelopmentoftheunionsasanattempttoinstill
orderfromwithintheworksituationitself. Bytheirdivisionbytrades,andbyspe-
cialisedandnon-specialisedworkers,theyhadtheeffectnotonlyofcontrolling
butalsooffragmentingthestruggleanddiffusingitalongtheseartificialdivisions.
By1910therewereover50unionsintheengineeringindustryalone. Therevolu-
tionarymovementthatsubsequentlydevelopedbeganpartlyasadestructionof
theoldformsoforganisation.
Three important movements developed. The evolutionary syndicalist move-
mentundertheFrenchinfluence;theindustrialsyndicalists(IWW)fromAmerica,
andtheshopstewardsmovement,whichwasparticularlyactiveintheClydeside
inScotland. Theystruggledforthecontrolofindustrybytheworkersandagainst
thefailureoftheorthodoxtradeunionsandleftparliamentarianismtogetany
improvementinworkingconditions. Butthesemovements,althoughstrongat
locallevel,andcapableoforganisingimportantstrikesandrevolts,neverwent
beyondthelimitsoftheengineeringandtransportindustriesandthemines.
The war years saw a pact between trade unions and the government. Both
combinedtoforciblyinstillasenseofpatriotismintheworkerstopreparethem
for the great massacre that was to come. Strikes became illegal as a result of
thisdeal,showingclearlyhowtheborderlinebetweenlegalityandillegalityis
a malleable instrument in the hands of power. Not all went willingly to the
slaughter,andthemanydesertionsandmutinieswhichweresavagelyputdown
arestillpartoftheproletariat’sunwrittenhistory.
The Communist Party, formed in 1920 during the post war depression, was
authoritarianandcentralised. Althoughthepartynevergainedthesupportthat
itscontinentalcounterpartsdid,itneverthelesscarriedoutitsroleofpolicingthe
strugglesincourse. Forexampleitenteredthestrugglesoftheunemployedwho
wereorganisedinlocalgroupsexpropriatingfood,squatting,etc,andchannelled
themintoreformistdemandsontheStateandlargedemonstrationssuchasthe
Jarrowhungermarches.
TheGeneralStrikewasemblematicofthecontrastbetweenthemassofworkers
andtheunionsandpartieswhoclaimedtorepresentthem.
However, with the recovery and development of heavy industry, the main
energiesoftheexploitedwereconcentratedattheworkplace,theonlyplacethey
6
nowfoundthemselvestogether. Theshopstewards’movementwasrevivedin
the fifties and sixties in the so-called boom years. But, although nearer to the
baseoftheworkers,itbrokeuptheareaofstruggleevenfurtherthanthealready
singletradesorientatedunions. Thegrowingdivisionoflabourcausedincreasing
divisionsinstruggle,withtheresultthatsolidaritybetweenthevarioussectors
waslimited,evenbetweenworkersinthesamefactory.
Whiletheunionswereworkingtodevelopindustryalongwiththebosses,the
baseweredevelopingdifferent,uncontrollableformsofstrugglesuchasgo-slows,
wildcat strikes, sit-ins, etc. For example, of the 421 strikes in the docks at the
beginning of the sixties, 410 were unofficial. These same workers had already
experienced troops being moved into the docks by a Labour government, and
TGWUofficialsgivingevidenceagainsttheirownmemberstenyearsbefore.
Accelerationinautomation,workpace,andalienation,especiallyinthefast
developingcarindustry,createdstruggleswhichwentagainsttheunion/manage-
mentworkethic. Againstbargainingandnegotiation,carworkersanddockers
in particular were carrying out sabotage on the assembly lines, wildcat strikes
and occupations. At times they succeeded in pushing their ‘defence’ organisa-
tionsintosituationsofattackandacrossthefrontiersofsectionalismandtrades
differences into which they had been conscripted. But the economism of the
unionswasoneofcapital’sstrongestarms. Atatimewhenindustrialriotsand
eveninsurrectionswerespreadingalloverEurope,eachstartingfromaminority
withitsownobjectivesandspreadingtoothercategoriesofworkersinthesame
industry,thenbeyond,usingpickets,workers’committees,assemblies,etc,the
unionsweretheonlyorganscapableofnegotiatingwiththemanagementand
gettingworkerstoreturntoworkundergreatslogansofunity.
Thisdualismintheworkers’movementbetweenelementsofthebasestrug-
gling directly and spontaneously within a precise economic situation, and the
representativesofthenationalpoliticsoftheofficialworkers’movementalways
readytoputabrakeonandformalisestruggles(e.g. boycotts,strikesandeven
‘workingtorule’),turningthemintoinstrumentsofnegotiationwiththeindustries,
hasalwaysexisted. Butnotalltheactionsofthebasecanbeinstrumentalised,
and the thrust towards illegality can never be fully stifled. At times it might
seemso. Butevenduringtherelative‘lulls’,thereexistsaperpetualmovement
ofabsenteeists,expropriators,andsaboteurs. Thismovementfrombelow,which
emergedinforceattheendofthesixties,dispelledthemythofthepassive,stable
Englishworkingclass,justastheimageofthetraditionalworkerchangedwith
theincreaseinthenumberofwomenandimmigrantworkersinproductivework
andtherapidlyexpandingserviceindustries.
Atthesametimeanewmovementwasgrowingintheschoolsandcolleges.
OneofthemainpointsofreferenceforthismovementwastheVietnamwar. In
7
everycollegeanduniversityvariousgroupswerestrugglingforpoliticalspace.
Foraperiodtherewasanattempttoformaunifiedstudentsmovement,theRev-
olutionaryStudentsFederation. ThemostsignificantgroupswereofaTrotskyist
tendency,Maoismhavinglittleinfluenceinthiscountry. Butthesterilepolitics
of the straight left (Trotskyists and other Leninists) could not contain the new
anti-authoritarianmovementthatwasbeginningtodevelop.
Thepoliticsofeverydaylife—organisingaroundone’sownoppression,trying
toovercomethedivisionbetweenworkersandstudents,betweenmenandwomen,
forminggroupsaroundpreciseproblemsasopposedtounderpoliticalbanners—
wasinfulldevelopment. Avastmovementofclaimants,squatters,feminists,etc,
emergedexpressingnottheRighttoWorkbuttheRefusalofWork,notemploying
the waiting tactics of unionist education but taking, Here and Now, what was
being refused, and refusing what was being offered. A critique of the nuclear
familyasafirmbastionofcapitalistpowerledtomanyexperiencesofcommunal
living. Thismovementinallitscomplexity,notsomuchastudentsmovement,
butawidespreadonecomprisingofyoungworkers,studentsandunemployed,
couldbecalledthelibertarianmovementofthetime.
Thismovementwascomprisedofautonomousgroupsactingoutsidethestag-
nantatmosphereofthetraditionalanarchistmovementwithitsownmicroscopic
power centres which, as Bakunin so astutely pointed out, are just as nefarious
as any other power structure. A parallel can therefore be drawn between the
dichotomywithintheworkersmovement,andthatwhichexistswithinthean-
archistmovement. Ontheonehandtherearethecomradeswhoholdpositions
ofpower,notcarryingoutanypreciseactivitytocontributetotherevolutionary
consciousnessofthemass,butwhospendtheirtimepresidingovermeetingsand
conferencesaimedatinfluencingyoungercomradesthroughtheincantationof
abstractprinciples. Theseprinciplesareupheldastheonlytruetenetsofanar-
chism,andareadheredtobythosewho,eitherbylazinessorweakness,accept
them acritically. The manifestations of these islands of power usually take the
formofpublicationsthatarelongstandingandrepetitive. Theyhavetheexternal
semblanceofan‘openforum’fortheuseofthemovementasawhole, butthe
basicideology—thatofconservationandstasis—isfilteredthroughfrombehind
theflurryof‘helpers’carryingoutthetaskof‘filling’andphysicallyproducingthe
publication. Thesepublicationsarethefirsttocondemnautonomousactionsthat
taketheirpointsofreferencefromtheillegalmovementoftheexploited. They
arethefirsttodenouncethem,accusingthemofbringingpolicerepressiondown
ontheanarchistmovement. Intheirreveriestheyhaveforgottenthatrepression
alwaysexists,andthatonlyinitsmostsophisticatedformcreatesthepeaceful
graveyardofacquiescence,whereonlyghostsareallowedtotread. Manyofthe
8
mostforcefulofrecentsocialrebellionshavebeenfiredandspreadbythepopular
responsetopolicerepression.
The traditional anarchist movement finds itself threatened therefore by the
othermovementofanarchists,theautonomousgroupsandindividualswhobase
their actions on a critical appraisal of past methods and up to date theory and
analysis. They too use the traditional instruments of leaflets, newspapers and
otherpublications,butusethemastoolsofrevolutionarycritiqueandinformation,
trying always to go towards the mass struggle and contribute to it personally
and methodologically. It is quite coherent — and necessary if they are to be
activeparticipantsinthestruggle—thattheyalsoapplytheinstrumentsofdirect
actionandarmedstruggle. Thesegroupsrefusethelogicofthepowercentreand
‘voluntaryhelpers’. Eachindividualisresponsibleforhisorheractionwhichis
basedondecisionsreachedthroughtheendlesstaskofacquiringinformationand
understanding. Someofthiscanalsobegainedfrom
theolderormoreexperiencedcomradesinthegroup,butneverassomethingto
bereveredandpasseddownacritically. Justastherearenoimmovableboundaries
between the two workers’ movements, nor are there within the two anarchist
movements. Noristhereafixedboundarybetweenthelatteranarchistmovement
andtheinsurrectionalistworkers’movement. Whenthestruggleheightensthese
movementscomeclosetogetherandintermingle,theanarchistshoweveralways
withtheaimofpushingthestruggletoarevolutionaryconclusionandoffering
libertarianmethodstopreventitsbeingtakenoverbyauthoritarianstructures.
Theother,traditional,anarchistmovementhasshownalltooofteninthepastits
willingnesstoformallianceswithstructuresoftheofficialworkers’movement.
Given the situation at the end of the sixties and beginning of the seventies,
withitswaveofindustrialunrestatthelevelofthebase,thestudents’struggles
intheuniversities,thestrugglesoftheunemployed,womenandsoon,theAngry
Brigade emerge both as a product of this reality, and as revolutionary subjects
acting within it. To reject them as some form of social deviance is to close
one’seyestotherealityofthestruggleatthattime. Thefactthattheiractions
deliberatelytookplaceinthefieldofillegality,solicitingotherstodothesame,
doesnotinanywaydisqualifythemfromwhatwasinitsveryessenceanillegal
movement. It is possible to see this even in the context of the bombings alone
thattookplaceintheseyears(althoughbydoingsowedonotintendtoreduce
thevastandvariedinstrumentsofillegalitytothatofthebomb): MajorYallop,
headoftheLaboratoriesatWoolwichArsenal,mainwitnessfortheprosecution
inthetrialofthesupposedAngryBrigade,wasforcedtoadmitthatinaddition
tothe25bombingsbetween1968andmid1971attributedtothem,another1,075
hadcomethroughhislaboratory.
9
Looking at the bombings claimed by the Angry Brigade, we see that they
focus on two areas of struggle that were highly sensitive at the time. The first
was the struggle in industry: the bombing of the Dept. of Employment and
ProductivityonthedayofalargedemonstrationagainsttheIndustrialRelations
Bill; the bombing of Carr’s house on the day of an even larger demonstration;
the bombing of William Batty’s home during a Ford strike at Dagenham; the
bombingofJohnDavies’,MinisterofTradeandIndustry,duringtheUpperClyde
Shipbuilderscrisis;thebombingofBryant’shomeduringastrikeatoneofhis
buildingworks. Tocomplementtheseattacks,therewerethebombsaimeddirectly
attherepressiveapparatusoftheStateatatimewhenrepressionwasincreasing
heavilyinresponsetotheupsurgeinallareasofstruggle. Thebombingofthe
homeofCommissionerWaldron,headofScotlandYard. Thebombingofthepolice
computer at Tintagel House; the home of Attorney General Peter Rawlinson,
and,finally,thatofaTerritorialArmyRecruitmentCentrejustafterinternment
wasintroducedinNorthernIrelandfallintothiscategory. Thebombingofthe
high street boutique, Biba’s and that of the BBC van the night before the Miss
Worldcontestwasanattempttopushfurtherinthedirectionofdestroyingthe
stereotypingandalienationofthespectacleofconsumerismandroleplaying. “Sit
inthedrugstore,lookdistant,empty,bored,drinkingsometastelesscoffee? or
perhapsBLOWITUPORBURNITDOWN.”(Communique8)
BytheiractionstheAngryBrigadealsobecameapartofthatspectacle, but
a part that took form in order to contribute to its destruction. Their actions as
presentedherefindaplacethereforenotassomeoldcommoditytobetakenout
anddusted,thenputbackontheshelflikearelicthatbelongstothepast. Thework
theycarriedout—andwhichfivelibertarianspaidforinheavyprisonsentences—
isacontributiontotheongoingstrugglewhichischangingformasthestrategies
of capital change in order for it to restructure and preserve itself. A critical
evaluationoftheAngryBrigademustthereforetakeplaceelsewherethanonthe
sterilepagesofthispamphlet. Itmusttakeplaceintheactiveconsiderationsofa
movementthathasatasktofulfil,andthatdoesnottakeheedofthecondemnation
and defamation by those whose ultimate aim is to protect themselves. Many
problemsareraisedbyarereadingoftheactionsandexperiencesoftheAngry
Brigade — clandestinity or not, symbolic action or direct attack, anonymous
actionsortheuseofcommuniquestobetransmittedbythemedia—tonamebut
a few. The pages that follow help to highlight these questions, whose solution
willonlybefoundintheconcretefieldofthestruggle.
JeanWeir
10