CRACK CAPITALISM

a centre of anti-capitalist opposition must de 'itl w lwth 'I' to
occupy a building illegally (and risk violent eviction) or to do it,
legally (by renting or receiving some form of star ' COf)(.' 'ssioll).
This is not an abstract question of whether we should ob 'y ('h '
law but a practical question of avoiding repression (01', possi bly,
hurt to other people): in some contexts, squatting is a P '1'(,' 't Iy
practical option; in others it would probably be met by imtn ,dint '
police repression,6 closure of the centre and arrest a nd possibly
torture of those involved. The same may be said, probably, of
any kind of anti-capitalist action: it makes no sense to ob 'y th .
law as a matter of principle, but the practical consequet1 ' 'S of
any particular action will always depend on the context.
Legality is usually used as a reference point to justify viol 'nt
state repression, but of course in many cases legality i no
guarantee at all against repression. Legal or illegal, any crack
that poses a significant threat to capital is likely to attract 'a
violent response from the forces of order, at least if the social
context permits it. How do we deal with state violence? Doe
revolution inevitably mean the violent overthrow of capitalism?
Do we need to build an armed organisation?
Certainly violence is becoming more and more attractive as
a means of confronting an increasingly violent capitalism. It is
not surprising that demonstrations against such events as the
meetings of the G8 have become more violent in recent years,
with the violence coming not only from the police but often being
initiated by demonstrators.7 And yet there are many problems in
thinking of our struggles against capital in terms of violence. For
a start, we are probably not very good at violence. Violence is
not part of the society that we want to create and we are unlikely
to be able to match capitalist forces in violence. Violence is not
a neutral terrain, but the terrain of the forces of domination: it
draws us into the social relations and forms of behaviour that
we repudiate: hierarchical structures dominated by men.s Dignity
is our ground and violence is the negation of dignity, wherever
it comes from.
Perhaps the key issue is not violence, but the setting of the
agenda, seizing the initiative. The point of the crack is that it
is a rupture: not just a response to capitalist aggression but
the attempt to move beyond it, to create now a different set
55