Hungerstrike, would you support this?
Sep 18 2008
Quote:
Shell to Sea campaigner Maura Harrington is on day nine of her hunger strike as the pipe-laying ship Solitaire remains off the coast of Mayo.Shell Ireland says no decision has yet been made on whether repair work to the Solitaire will carried out in Ireland or at some other location in Europe.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0917/corrib.html
I don't, either do the other anarchists I hang out with. But a bunch of people are running ragged supporting her. I won't go into it too much, but want opinions.
Sep 18 2008
#2
I have many. Its a disempowering tactic that has made the campaign now all about the righteous struggle of one person rather than about the mass struggle of a community. Its completely undemocratic in that it was just announced to the campaign when it began and everyone is expected to support it.
As a tactic its a horrible thing to do to your family and community when there is no need for it, so now s2s are having daily pickets and there's all this action but the message is 'Support the hunger strike' rather than 'Shell to Sea' and fuck all members of the public actually want to support it. I wont attend the pickets as I think it just provides a base for Maura to continue this ill-thought out action. Oh yeh, and as if things weren't bad enough somebody planted a bomb outside shell hq.
Sep 18 2008
#3
We probably disagree on films, but I agree with weeler. I kind of felt this about the airport workers too. Hungerstriking isn't the way to go.
Sep 18 2008
#4
Hmm I'm not against hunger-striking as a tactic per se, but yeah that does sound ill-concieved. I'd probably argue for a proper consultation to be done with the locals (and her mates/family) to see what they think about it - if they're all for it as part of their campaign then it's proably fair enough - if they see it as a replacement for their own activity or think she's out of order then it's defniitely not.
Sep 18 2008
#5
Yeah, I should have qualified my statement. I'm not dogmatically against hungerstriking, but if it takes place under the conditions that weeler described then it's a bit unfair on everyone else.
Sep 18 2008
#6
I don't think we should really support hunger strikes ever, to be honest. I'm open on the subject though - how do you have a democratic hunger strike when the ultimate outcome of it is the potential death of a comrade? Something we can't ask of someone and should not encourage either.
Sep 18 2008
#7
People do self-sacrificing stuff all the time - being at the front of a picket-line confrontation is likely to get you a concussion or broken limbs for example. It's part and parcel of confrontation that people sometimes put themselves in danger.
The difficulty is less in whether self-sacrifice can be democratic, and more in that line between approving of someone volunteering to do something for a cause when it could make an impact, and then letting them continue if they're running into difficulty. No-one goes on hunger strike expecting to die, but they may go on it while accepting the possibility. When people march to war or take to the hills with shotguns, it's the same calculation.
If and when people step in to stop it is a matter of weighing the right of the individual to control over their own actions and your right as a bystander to this process to intervene if their perspective is fucked.
Sep 18 2008
#8
Weeler as much as share your critque I think we should be supporting this women right now and blame should be firmly placed at shell. Why did you post this on libcommunity?
Sep 18 2008
#9
Actually I think this hungerstrike has had the opposite effect and moblilised more people behind shell to sea. For example over 50 people attended a picket in belfast including members of the Belfast WSM. There has been pcikets on and off for the last few years but this has been by far our biggest turnout in any picket Ive seen
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89151
Sep 18 2008
#10
Bobby wrote:
Weeler as much as share your critque I think we should be supporting this women right now and blame should be firmly placed at shell.
This is the attitude at it's worst, and really highlights what can be the problem. We have to support her (no time to stop and think) she's putting her life on the line!
Sep 18 2008
#11
Bobby wrote:
Weeler as much as share your critque I think we should be supporting this women right now and blame should be firmly placed at shell.
You can't share my critique and support her really bobby, my critique is that support, even critical, encourages the hungerstrike to continue.
Bobby wrote:
Why did you post this on libcommunity?
A number of reasons, to hear opinions of people I have a lot of time for, because I post here a lot and wanted to discuss it and because nothing is beyond discussing. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't discuss this in this small sparsely populated corner of the web? I'm also interested in what grounds you think you have for asking me why I posted anything anywhere?
Sep 18 2008
#12
Weelers, i assume he meant why libcommunity as opposed to one of the other forums.
Sep 18 2008
#13
It's gettign serious discussion for now so I wouldn't worry Bobby.
A number of us raised reservervations about the hunger striking airport workers but given that they took that action, and while it does shift the focus of a campaign to an individual rather than resisting attacks on a community it's difficult not to feel compelled to support it.
What do you suggest? Do people think someone should intervene to get her off the strike? I'm curious.
Sep 18 2008
#14
Bobby wrote:
Actually I think this hungerstrike has had the opposite effect and moblilised more people behind shell to sea. For example over 50 people attended a picket in belfast including members of the Belfast WSM. There has been pcikets on and off for the last few years but this has been by far our biggest turnout in any picket Ive seen
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89151
Yes, this is the problem bobby. They are mobilising to support the hunger striker. Are you trying to prove my point?
Sep 18 2008
#15
xConorx wrote:
What do you suggest? Do people think someone should intervene to get her off the strike? I'm curious.
Well, do you think seeing pickets, larger than ever before encourage someone to stop their hunger strike or leave them in a position where they can't back out? Regardless of the intentions of the people attending the pickets.
Sep 18 2008
#16
I see what you mean about people mobilising to support the hungerstriker than the wider campaign but Rob Ray makes a good point about the democracy of self sacrifice during a struggle. I think I would also agree with his suggestions about speaking the the community/families in question before taking such actions. Do we know whether this happened or not? And as xConorx states, when someone starts a hunger strike what can you do if you don't agree with it?
Sep 18 2008
#17
weeler wrote:
xConorx wrote:
What do you suggest? Do people think someone should intervene to get her off the strike? I'm curious.Well, do you think seeing pickets, larger than ever before encourage someone to stop their hunger strike or leave them in a position where they can't back out? Regardless of the intentions of the people attending the pickets.
This is a good point but it doesn't really answer the question.
Sep 18 2008
#18
Like I said, I resent being forced into the position of having to support someone and leaving no room for manouvre in a struggle, likewise it's shite that the focus of protests is shifted.
You didn't answer my question though. I said I'd probably still support it, despite my grave reservations.
Sep 18 2008
#19
Refused wrote:
I see what you mean about people mobilising to support the hungerstriker than the wider campaign but Rob Ray makes a good point about the democracy of self sacrifice during a struggle.
Its mostly the left mobilising though, they love self-sacrifice and I certainly wouldnt put my life in their hands. Public opinion is broadly against the tactic, from what I can see. Even my own republican mother doesn't like it, fwiw. As such, its not likely to make shell back down or mobilise public support outside the left, but even if it did - as anarchists (ahem) is this how we think struggles should be fought, through individual self sacrifice? You might beat shell but its not empowering.
Refused wrote:
I think I would also agree with his suggestions about speaking the the community/families in question before taking such actions. Do we know whether this happened or not? And as xConorx states, when someone starts a hunger strike what can you do if you don't agree with it?
The campaign didn't decide to have someone go on hungerstrike no. If someone starts an ill-timed hunger strike surely you just ask them to stop rather than 'putting pressure on shell' to back down, which amounts to getting in behind the strike surely?
Sep 18 2008
#20
xConorx wrote:
You didn't answer my question though. I said I'd probably still support it, despite my grave reservations.
Sorry, yeh, I thought it was implied, I would call for an end to it, if I were in a position to.
Sep 18 2008
#21
Oh certainly I'd support a move for someone to advise her that the tactic in the long run isn't likely to acheive anything.
Sep 18 2008
#22
Rob Ray wrote:
People do self-sacrificing stuff all the time - being at the front of a picket-line confrontation is likely to get you a concussion or broken limbs for example. It's part and parcel of confrontation that people sometimes put themselves in danger.
The difference is that being on a picket line is confrontational wheras a hunger strike is pacifistic - and therefore useless.
Sep 18 2008
#23
Don’t dismiss pacificst tactics, used as part of a wider campaign they can help pile on pressure and form a second front for the target to worry about. The dual use of legal/illegal activity can be extremely effective.
Sep 18 2008
#24
No. There's no way this hunger strike is going to have any effect on Shell.
Sep 18 2008
#25
Lets not go into pacifism/violence and legal/illegal. Wilcat strikes are nearly always pacifist but they are one of the bestest tactics around.
Sep 18 2008
#26
No I don’t think this one probably will, wrong context, low support, poorly thought through. I agree that she should be persuaded not to do it if possible. However you were saying pacifistic=useless, which I don’t agree with.
Sep 18 2008
#27
weeler wrote:
Lets not go into pacifism/violence and legal/illegal. Wilcat strikes are nearly always pacifist but they are one of the bestest tactics around.
By pacifistic I don't mean non-violent, I mean that its harmful to the person you're protesting againt. A wildcat strike harms business, obviously, but a hunger strike doesn't harm Shell (for example). So why should they care about negotiating with you?
Sep 18 2008
#28
While i don't think it would, i guess the thinking is it would harm the companies public image if they let her die?
Sep 18 2008
#29
Well the idea is that it harms their image if they fail to put things on hold, and eats at the psychological strength of the people in charge through constant guilt. While in this case no it’s not going to work, that’s not always so. If you get a boss who’s a bit weaker it might well eat at them and parallel tactics can benefit from any resulting hesitancy.
Sep 18 2008
#30
Which is a huge gamble to take. Obviously.
What are your objections?