Anonymous submission to Unity of Fields
In reflecting on the recent encampment mobilisations, it becomes clear that while significant efforts were made to organize resistance, these actions fell short of evolving into a fully-fledged revolutionary movement. The encampments were largely isolated and disorganized, demonstrating a lack of cohesive strategy, long-term planning, and genuine leadership.
Liberalism within the ranks — manifesting as fear of escalation, individualism, and comfort in moderation — further stifled progress. We must confront these issues directly to build a disciplined, ideologically-driven movement capable of real revolutionary change.
Key Lessons and Forward Steps:
- Combatting Liberalism through Political Education and Ideological Clarity:
Across the encampments, attempts to introduce political theory and revolutionary education were often dismissed as “too political” or unnecessary as it would “scare people away”. This reflects a liberal tendency that seeks to prioritize personal comfort and avoid difficult truths. Liberalism thrives on ambiguity, as it allows individuals to bypass necessary ideological clarity in favour of individualistic or opportunistic approaches.
Here, we can draw inspiration from the intellectual legacy of Basil Al-Araj, who emphasized that true revolutionaries must engage in study as well as action. He believed that understanding the historical and material conditions of struggle is essential to effective resistance. A movement without theory, he argued, is like a soldier without a weapon. Al-Araj’s commitment to learning before fighting serves as a model for grounding our actions in political education. We must actively create and disseminate accessible materials especially from Palestinian, African, Indigenous revolutionary thinkers such as Basil Al-Araj, Frantz Fanon, Amilcar Cabral — whether in the form of reading lists, teach-ins, posters, art or videos — that make revolutionary theory comprehensible and applicable to all comrades. This educational foundation will enable us to recognize and combat liberalism whenever it emerges.
2. Organizing Structures for Movement Building:
One of the greatest failures of the encampments was the absence of real organizing structures. What happened was not a movement but a loosely connected network that did not answer to any decision-making body, and by extension, the needs of the masses. Without such a structure, it becomes impossible to escalate actions on a national level, as each encampment operates in isolation — and a vacuum, but more on this later. The lack of accountability led to inaction, internal conflicts, and ultimately the collapse of the mobilizations.
To build a real movement, we must adopt an approach similar to what George Habash advocated for in the broader Arab struggle. He emphasized the necessity of a vanguard organization — one that is disciplined, strategic, and ideologically clear. While a decentralized network of autonomous groups should exist, there must be a central body that coordinates support for actions, maintains ideological consistency, and ensures collective decision-making. This structure allows for flexibility in local organizing while ensuring a unified strategy for national escalation. Moreover, decision-making must be transparent and democratic, with mechanisms for constructive criticism and debate, but also commitment to upholding decisions made collectively, ensuring that liberal tendencies are challenged and rooted out at their core and as soon as they emerge.
3. Isolating and Expelling Liberalism:
One of the most glaring issues within the encampments was the pervasive influence of liberalism, particularly petit-bourgeois tendencies that often put comfort and selfishness under the guise of “safety” before the interests of the revolution which give rise to political, and organisational liberalism (Mao). These tendencies, while spearheading the actions, had no intention of expanding the mobilizations or escalating them into something greater — as Demonstrated by the slump we have faced during summer. Their focus remained on symbolic resistance, staying within the framework of legality, and “law-abiding” action to avoid direct confrontation with state power. This reflects the ideological contradiction between individualism and collectivism, where personal interests* override the collective needs of the revolutionary struggle.
The revolutionary must be uncompromising in rejecting half-measures. Liberalism must be not merely criticized but actively identified, isolated and expelled from the movement. This requires real decision-making structures that facilitate open criticism, debate, and self-reflection. Revolutionary movements thrive on internal critique, and without it, liberalism will flourish unchecked. Habash’s principle of ideological clarity is critical here; the movement must be ready to confront and resolve contradictions, rather than accommodate them for the sake of superficial unity.
4. Rejecting Moderate Approaches and Escalating Struggle:
The unwillingness to escalate beyond symbolic resistance was a clear hindrance to the success of the encampments. Fear of confrontation with the law and moderate approaches reduced the mobilizations to peaceful protests that posed no real threat to structures of power. This reflects a broader issue within liberal organizing, where maintaining respectability in the eyes of the state and broader public takes precedence over meaningful confrontation.
In line with Al-Araj’s insistence on the necessity of armed resistance when faced with imperialist forces, we must be prepared to escalate strategically. Symbolic resistance alone will not dismantle capitalist or imperialist structures. Escalation, when strategically planned, must transcend mere protests to target the mechanisms of state power. The encampments, while powerful in their symbolism, ultimately faltered because they remained rooted in a moderate stance — to be precise, the large majority remained rooted in symbolic action and attempts to break that cycle were met by resistance and Lack of Genuine support under the principles of the unity of the fields all over Britain. Revolution is not won through passive resistance but through bold, decisive action that challenges power structures head-on. Actions that are rooted in the local conditions of the masses. For instance, it was the Bold initiative by the students at Columbia University in the United Colonial states of America that stroke the heart of the free people and forced all of us into taking action and lead to our mobilisation here in Britain and around the world — in a way, they have imposed their will on the rest of us; if they didn’t have the courage, the discipline, and ultimately sacrifice, none of us would have set up tents in our universities nor given birth to what could be the biggest decolonial movement of our lifetime. This is because only praxis will demonstrate the validity of our ideas and that’s what will recruit new revolutionaries, whether locally for us or internationally for our comrades worldwide.
5. Developing a Cohesive and Strategic Movement with Long-Term Planning:
The lack of long-term planning and a clear vision meant that the encampments functioned in a vacuum. Burnout, disorganization, and eventual collapse were the direct results of failing to connect the encampments to a broader revolutionary strategy. Many encampments were limited by the absence of broader community involvement. Relying solely on students without integrating the wider working-class community renders any encampment unsustainable. The encampments became isolated from the communities they intended to serve, treating the community as a mere resource rather than an integral component of the movement. Without a roadmap for the future, actions remained reactive rather than proactive, limited in scope and effectiveness.
Drawing on the principles of strategic action and national liberation struggles, it is essential to recognize that each encampment, each protest, must be viewed as one tactic in a larger struggle. Long-term planning is essential for ensuring that actions are not isolated but connected through a unified strategy. This includes but not limited to developing leadership structures, coordinating between different groups, and sharing a collective understanding of the goals of the movement. The creation of such structures is not only vital to the sustainability of future actions but also to their effectiveness in advancing revolutionary goals.
Conclusion: Building a Revolutionary Front
The lessons from the encampments are clear. Without strong, centralized organizing structures, and without mechanisms to confront and isolate liberalism, our efforts will remain fragmented and unsuccessful. A revolutionary movement cannot accommodate moderate stances or individualism. Instead, we must build collective structures grounded in discipline, ideological clarity, and a commitment to long-term struggle.
As Al-Araj emphasized, revolution is not spontaneous; it requires preparation, knowledge, and strategy.
The struggle must be uncompromising, Decolonial**, and focused on the liberation of the masses, not limited by bourgeois or liberal values. By centering revolutionary education, fostering genuine community alliances, and creating real decision-making structures, we can build a movement capable of escalating action on a national level. Through organized, strategic, and ideologically grounded action, we can advance the struggle against capitalism and imperialism, ensuring that future mobilizations transcend the limitations of the past.
Expansion:
* Personal interests: to expand on this let us take this text from Basil- Al-Araj and apply it to our own experience: “Every 9 to 15 years, a strong intifada or Palestinian uprising has taken place, from 1882 to the present day. These revolutions have always been accompanied by a state of political deadlock and frustration in the Palestinian center. The Zionist enemy and its allies have generally resorted to deception to suppress these uprisings by opening a very small window of opportunity for a political solution. What has created the historical contradiction between the currents of confrontation and compromise is that the size of this small window has only allowed this group to enter, without involving the rest of the large segments of the population. The opening of this small window is intended to trap this small group into compromising the rights and stability of the Palestinian people.” Similarly, every time we have a movement the structures of power, opt for deception whether it is to buy time or allow a few people in at the cost of the entire movement. In our case it was to stalling until summer break, with shallow promises of negotiations in other words they have manufactured our slump with the help of organisational and political liberalism within our movement.
** Decolonial theory centers Indigenous perspectives in resisting colonialism and shaping post-colonial futures. Unlike traditional anti-colonialism, it recognizes colonization as an ongoing reality and emphasizes the need for Indigenous leadership in dismantling colonial structures. This theory calls for not just political liberation but also the integration of Indigenous knowledge systems into societal structures, challenging modern systems of oppression like land dispossession and cultural erasure — in our case, white supremacy disguised as allyship. It critiques post-colonialism’s failure to address these ongoing legacies and advocates for a transformative approach rooted in Indigenous rights, land, and autonomy.