The Angry Brigade PDF
Preview The Angry Brigade
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
Description:The list of books you might like
