Canada - 2010
May 21 2008
In 2010 we get three major things around which Canadian Anarchists, radicals and assorted activists are centering actions around. We get the Olympics in Vancouver which the indigenous groups, anti-poverty and pro-squatting/anti-homelessness groups have been fighting against as well as the G8 and SPP meetings which are attracting protests by the usual suspects.
So what are your opinions on whats going on and does anyone plan to attend one of the upcoming actions?
May 21 2008
#2
I'm in the Vancouver area, and I'll probably attend some more olympics related stuff, but it depends on what it is.
The anti-poverty, homlessness and indigenous groups have been the most successful and loudest, but I definitely agree about the adventurist tendancy.
It's a bit frustrating... There is a MASSIVE class war going on here: city-wide gentrification, wholesale deregulation of the labour market, policy measures to increase the percentage of "temporary migrant workers" (with significantly reduced legal rights) making up the work force, public transit issues, attacks on non-party political adverts, etc. etc. The problem is that it is, by in large, invisible. The working class here is not incredibly organized and has yet to really have much success in fighting back.
To be honest, while I admit that I'm ideologically biased in this regard, I'm more interested in workplace organizing as well as community organizing around issues like tenant's rights, migrant rights, workers' rights etc. than on large-scale demos.
May 21 2008
#3
Yeah, I think the mass demos are mostly for publicity. They are a good place to meet activists from many different tendencies and partake in some anarchist outreaching, though.
May 21 2008
#4
Quote:
They are a good place to meet activists from many different tendencies and partake in some anarchist outreaching, though.
Global, the funny thing is we all already know each other, I mean not neccesarilly personally but we all know who these groups are and roughly who is in them, at very least in our own cities. The outreach we do is largely to each other, its preaching to the choir. Ninety percent of all activism involves talking to other activists, and when we do engage with the public its through the media where editors can manipulate the message.
Don't get me wrong I may even come back out west from Toronto to Edmonton just as an excuse to visit friends in a couple years, but there are no shortage of floaty liberal faux radicals hanging around from the anti globalisation movement to do the heavy lifting. If you are genuinely interested in the class struggle then leave the liberal work to the liberals.
Tsi, I completely agree that workplace organising should be a priority, the nice thing about it is you can do some really great work around other issues at the same time. I think working around temporoary foreign workers is a really great example of that.
I think the real problem is that summit protests provide a formula for activity that is easy to follow. There isn't a tradition of solid organising like there is one of summit protests, publicity stunts in Canada. One place where we've done a decent job of passing on collective knowledge about what has worked and what hasn't is the organiser trainings put on by the IWW.
I think this is also why an organised anarchist group with a program, procedure and orientation towards the working class, something like the platformists or especifists talk about is so important. This way we can build from a common program and share experiences. Our collective memory is very short, we wind up repeating so many mistakes. Things really seem to be on the upswing in western Canada as far as activist goes, but I'm really worried we'll make the same mistakes from six years ago all over again.
May 21 2008
#5
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
I think the real problem is that summit protests provide a formula for activity that is easy to follow. There isn't a tradition of solid organising like there is one of summit protests, publicity stunts in Canada. One place where we've done a decent job of passing on collective knowledge about what has worked and what hasn't is the organiser trainings put on by the IWW.I think this is also why an organised anarchist group with a program, procedure and orientation towards the working class, something like the platformists or especifists talk about is so important. This way we can build from a common program and share experiences. Our collective memory is very short, we wind up repeating so many mistakes. Things really seem to be on the upswing in western Canada as far as activist goes, but I'm really worried we'll make the same mistakes from six years ago all over again.
Activism does seem to be on the upswing yes, but it doesn't even come close to matching the efforts that are being put in by the bourgeoisie to wage war on the working class. I guess all we can really do about this is fight hard.
I'm in total agreement about organization for building a movement and sharing experience, although I haven't made up my mind about platformism specifically. Unfortunately (and I really do hate to bitch), there's an awful lot of lifestylism and anti-organizational/innsurectionist tendancy out here.
May 21 2008
#6
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
The other stuff is basically adventurism trying to relive the glory days of Seattle and Quebec.
i'm trusting EW is being sardonic when he refers to seattle as a "glory day." the demonstrations then showed that the opposition to the antidemocratic methods of the G8 was deep. but alot of working people got victimized in the pointless property destruction. i was appalled at how many people thought it was "cool" that cars and shops got smashed up. idiots.
May 21 2008
#7
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
The other stuff is basically adventurism trying to relive the glory days of Seattle and Quebec.
i'm trusting EW is being sardonic when he refers to seattle as a "glory day." the demonstrations then showed that the opposition to the antidemocratic methods of the G8 was deep. but alot of working people got victimized in the pointless property destruction. i was appalled at how many people thought it was "cool" that cars and shops got smashed up. idiots.
May 21 2008
#8
Yeah I was being snarky, I'm kind of ashamed to say that around that time (when I was 18) I was one of those cheerleaders for drestruction. I do think it played a role in my radicalisation but it also pulled me into some pretty crummy lifestylist nonsense. I think that if there was a more thoughtful anarchist scene, something I've tried to build since then this stuff wouldn't have been so appealing.
May 21 2008
#9
Quote:
but alot of working people got victimized in the pointless property destruction.
At least they got a few days off work.
May 21 2008
#10
oh, right, that'll make up for it.
May 22 2008
#11
Apparently APC (anti-poverty coalition) in Vancouver are building squats like mad crazy because of all the evictions of poor people that were approved in order to tear down their homes and build condos, hotels, etc. for the games.
May 22 2008
#12
Global that is fair enough, but evictions are caused by more things than the Olympics, I mean really its just an excuse. They try and pull this gentrification stunt in the downtown eastside of Vancouver every time anything comes to town. Doesn't blaming this on the Olympics and organising against the Olympics kind feed into the hype? Its the same in Edmonton with 97th street these neighbourhoods are constantly under attack, but its about capital- not the Olympics.
Also Squats are all fine and good, but the only people who prefer a squat to real subsidised housing are activist tourists, as an interim solution squatting is great but lets be honest the working poor deserve better than crummy abandoned buildings with leaky roofs. Also Squats don't build class power, they are basically a strategy of evading power and trying to build something outside existing social relations, which in the short term may provide a break but at some point you have to face the enemy on terrain you can win. That terrain is the economy.
May 22 2008
#13
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
Global that is fair enough, but evictions are caused by more things than the Olympics, I mean really its just an excuse. They try and pull this gentrification stunt in the downtown eastside of Vancouver every time anything comes to town. Doesn't blaming this on the Olympics and organising against the Olympics kind feed into the hype? Its the same in Edmonton with 97th street these neighbourhoods are constantly under attack, but its about capital- not the Olympics.Also Squats are all fine and good, but the only people who prefer a squat to real subsidised housing are activist tourists, as an interim solution squatting is great but lets be honest the working poor deserve better than crummy abandoned buildings with leaky roofs. Also Squats don't build class power, they are basically a strategy of evading power and trying to build something outside existing social relations, which in the short term may provide a break but at some point you have to face the enemy on terrain you can win. That terrain is the economy.
I couldn't possibly agree more with what you've said here. The real problem is Capital, not the olympics per se, although the olympics is the "reason" for massive influxes of Capital, the emptying of public coffers on building infrastructure (in the interest of improving returns on capital), and resulting gentrification.
Unless squatting could be organized to the extent that it would provide a real alternative to paying rent for working people who aren't trying to "opt out" of society & the economy altogether, it cannot be a way of building working class power. Yes, well and good for an interim solution, but no substitute for social housing or community-level organizing around housing and tenancy issues.
May 22 2008
#14
Quote:
Also Squats are all fine and good, but the only people who prefer a squat to real subsidised housing are activist tourists, as an interim solution squatting is great but lets be honest the working poor deserve better than crummy abandoned buildings with leaky roofs. Also Squats don't build class power, they are basically a strategy of evading power and trying to build something outside existing social relations, which in the short term may provide a break but at some point you have to face the enemy on terrain you can win. That terrain is the economy.
EW, my friend, this is absolutely spot-on; really solid analysis.
May 22 2008
#15
Quote:
Also Squats are all fine and good, but the only people who prefer a squat to real subsidised housing
Which requires a massive Welfare State. I prefer direct expropriation. Kropotkin style. Not to say subsidized housing is a bad thing, but it is only a small reform.
Quote:
trying to build something outside existing social relations
I believe that is partially the point. Existing social relations are unredeemable. Time to build some new ones (while simultaneously destroying the old ones.)
May 23 2008
#16
Global Dissident wrote:
Which requires a massive Welfare State. I prefer direct expropriation. Kropotkin style. Not to say subsidized housing is a bad thing, but it is only a small reform.Existing social relations are unredeemable. Time to build some new ones (while simultaneously destroying the old ones.)
I think that it's a bit of an overstatement to call squats a direct appropriation. Squats are only possible in already abandoned buildings, and at whatever point the friends of Capital decide that they have interest in the site, there's very little that can be done to prevent them from taking it... and anything positive that does happen in the process is more of a result of the community-level-organizing around the issue of housing than of the squat per se. the Woodwards' building squat here in Vancouver is pretty much case-in-point on that.
Are existing social relations unredeemable?? If so, is there even any point??? I also think that this understates the extent to which co-operation and mutual-aid exist as social facts, without which "society" itself seems impossible... it's just that they are constrained (and silenced, while ultimately relied upon) by hierarchical social relations & capital.
I also don't think that we can really genuinely build new social relationships "outside" the old ones. Squats rely on Capital; otherwise there wouldn't be anything to squat in. I also think that this notion fails to take into account the totalizing nature of Capital.
May 23 2008
#17
tsi wrote:
Squats are only possible in already abandoned buildings, and at whatever point the friends of Capital decide that they have interest in the site, there's very little that can be done to prevent them from taking it... .
like when giuliani sent the NYPD tank to put out the east village squatters
accompanying article: http://mediafilter.org/MFF/S36/s36.13evix.html
rinse the hyperbole out before reading.
May 23 2008
#18
Quote:
Which requires a massive Welfare State. I prefer direct expropriation. Kropotkin style. Not to say subsidized housing is a bad thing, but it is only a small reform.
Coop housing can exist on a large scale and does not require a massive welfare state, it also doesn't require the poorest of the poor to sleep in hovels. Hell I'm looking out my balcony right now at a housing coop that is the size of a small apartment block and houses a hundred or so people, no welfare state involved, in fact its completely self managed.
Sure expropriation is great, but Kropotkin also believed in a movement that had the capacity to fight back- on class terrain. Organising against the Olympics doesn't do this. The thing is subsidised housing is a small reform but a squat isn't even that, it's the housing equivalent of dumpster diving. Seriously workers deserve better, if you are going to expropriate something why not something nice? The answer of course is obvious because we don''t have the social base or the organisation to expropriate something nice. That requires a mass movement build over time, and a lot of unglamorous work.
Now seriously is what you prefer as far as direct expropriation what is at issue here, or what is best for the working class? I mean your own personal political aesthetics about living underground and off the grid aside most workers want a nice place to live, most squats are far from nice places. What we want as radicals has nothing to do with it, the path to revolution lies in what the workers want out of the world that capitalism can't give them- a decent life without bosses where they can get on with things. If squatting is the best example of anarchism we can give to the average person they'll think the world we want looks a lot like Mad Max.
Quote:
Existing social relations are unredeemable. Time to build some new ones (while simultaneously destroying the old ones.)
Except that you can't exist outside the current social relations, ask the squatters movement in Berlin how they are doing compared to their heydey in the early 90's. Slowly but surely capitalism is closing in on them, sure new squats open at half the rate the the old ones are being closed. Remember that big Danish squat?
Capitalism has no outside, no matter what you do you are still completely within the system. Squatting, dumpstering, hell even stealing are still completely reliant on capitalist social relations to exist. Anarchists that live in squats, steal, and dumpster as much as they can get are not any more outside the system than parasites are 'outside' the biological system of their hosts. The only way forward is having a stake in society and fighting back alongside your neighbours co-workers and the rest of the working class.
There seems to be a tendency to do two sorts of organising in the indigenous/anti poverty/anti homelessness groups. One is real on the ground connections with struggles that are going on outside political circles, like the housing and radical labour struggles in Edmonton, OCAP's direct action casework, or low key outreach efforts that if they had more people and more work devoted to could be really powerful stuff as far as putting forward an anarchist agenda in Canada.
The other stuff is basically adventurism trying to relive the glory days of Seattle and Quebec. I would classify summit protests (anti G-8, anti Olympics, and anti SPP), as basically useless reactive organising. Just as one example is the G8 coming to Edmonton. Now there are a finite number of activists in Edmonton and radical activity is very much on the upswing. The projects going on while some of which I am really criticial of (especially the approach of environmentalists in regards to the tarsands), are good solid long term organising, a one of protest like the G8 would be a disaster to a movement that is just getting born.
There are amzing things happening in Canada around places like Six Nations, the labour scene on the prairies during the boom, and OCAP's more low key practical work. Why waste time and resources on creating a massive spectactle with the goal of having a big showdown with the cops where anarchists will inevaitably get shit kicked and have to waste valuable resources doing prisoner support afterwards.
We need to think more long term, and build projects that involve people outside progressive circles in our activism that builds real infrasturcture people can use in their day to day struggles. The energy that is being used on this stuff would go much farther being used by groups like No One Is Illegal to wage the day to day fight that wins people's hearts and minds. The most depressing part is its often the groups with the good practical work that are the quickets to waste time and resources on things like large demos.