Is community action a load of bullshit for most people?

Yes
39% (9 votes)
No
61% (14 votes)
Total votes: 23

Posted By

Devrim
Jul 5 2006 22:52

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

Devrim
Jul 5 2006 22:52

There is a lot of talk on these boards about action within communities. I wonder how real this is, and whether they really exist.

Now, I am not disputing the fact that in some places there is a common interest in communities, for example in parts of the U.K. there are still large stocks of council housing, which gives people a common interest.

Consider my situation, however, which I think is not uncommon. I live in an apartment block in the centre of a large city. I know the people in my block, and am good friends with some of them (the woman next door is an anarchist smile ). We all have different landlords though, and there is nothing in which we have a common interest as tenants. I don't think that any collective action is possible. Even if it was, over what?

At work though, I as a worker have collective interests with the people a work with, and we also have some power. Earlier this year we prevented the sacking of a fellow worker by going on strike.

For most people, and I realise there are some exceptions, what does community organising mean?

Devrim

Steven.
Jul 5 2006 23:01

Doesn't really mean anything for me. I've had this discussion with catch a few times... I have pretty much no connection with my local area, whereas at work I spend almost all of my waking life, and it sucks.

I think some collective action over council tax, or other local taxes such as bin charges which are being snuck in in London anyway are a possibility (like the Dublin fight against the water charge), and council housing as you point out, but i think that's about it.

I'd also be willing to bet that a large proportion of community organising is mostly reactionary, as opposed to workplace organising which almost always furthers the interests of all workers. One example of the former would be a community campaign in camden near my old work to stop a help centre for mentally disabled adults being set up on a street, because the residents didn't want mentally disabled people walking around their area; or various campaigns to stop things like drug assistance shelters or "shooting galleries" near them. I think workplaces are places where it is harder to divide workers against each other than geographical areas (see the low incidence of racist/nationalist strikes for example)...

jef costello
Jul 5 2006 23:13

I have to agree with John. here, a lot of local stuff is largely about defending current rights, often at the expense of others. Fighting for regeneration funding for example. It also gets you into bed with some dodgy people, many people are NIMBYs as John. has described with the help centre etc.

On the other hand helping out with community stuff can be rewarding and worthwhile, but this is in part due to a strong existing group in my area (although they are flagging it seems)

Caiman del Barrio
Jul 5 2006 23:24
Jef Costello wrote:
It also gets you into bed with some dodgy people, many people are NIMBYs as John. has described with the help centre etc.

Lucky then that industrial activity only involves those with an immaculate, dogmatic communist politic then? roll eyes

jef costello
Jul 5 2006 23:28
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Lucky then that industrial activity only involves those with an immaculate, dogmatic communist politic then? roll eyes

Was there a need for that?

Steven.
Jul 5 2006 23:33
Jef Costello wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Lucky then that industrial activity only involves those with an immaculate, dogmatic communist politic then? roll eyes

Was there a need for that?

Yeah, especially as the basic point was accurate. Okay it's not an argument against community activity per se, but the point about workplace activity mostly being more progressive - regardless of the politics of the participants - is just basically true (just look at the myriad ethnic/religious community activists + leaders who basically compete with other ethnic groups over resources as one example)

Caiman del Barrio
Jul 5 2006 23:46

But surely they both represent the same objective: reformist labour demands under capital are defensive (and in the case of the CPE, at least partially reactionary), yet they are considered to be broadly progressive in that they are class struggle - and therefore encourage further class struggle, while contributing to the recomposition of the class itself.

Of course some community activity will be reactionary, in which case you don't fuckin participate in it. Or are we incapable of making that decision now?

I think NIMBYism is an ill-advised term to use, if you consider that class self-interest is a basic tenet of communism. I mean, do you not support the activities of workers in a British plant (Longbridge, Ryton etc) that's moving its labour overseas?

Steven.
Jul 6 2006 00:01
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
But surely they both represent the same objective: reformist labour demands under capital are defensive (and in the case of the CPE, at least partially reactionary), yet they are considered to be broadly progressive in that they are class struggle - and therefore encourage further class struggle, while contributing to the recomposition of the class itself.

Firstly - how was the CPE struggle reactionary in any way? It was in the interest of the working class as a whole, to prevent discrimination against under-26s.

Quote:
Of course some community activity will be reactionary, in which case you don't fuckin participate in it. Or are we incapable of making that decision now?

Huh? All I said was a large proportion of it was reactionary, unlike stuff in the workplace. Would you disagree with that?

Quote:
I think NIMBYism is an ill-advised term to use, if you consider that class self-interest is a basic tenet of communism.

They key here is *class* self-interest, not the interests of a sub-group of the class. A fair bit of trade unionism was like this at one point - particularly in the US, in the AFL for example, who used to scab on other union strikes. But unionism here is pretty much dead enough that this doesn't happen any more. Any group of workers trying to win improvements at the expense of other workers is not to be supported in any way - it's basically comparable with scabbing.

NIMBYism is a useful term for many things, for example those campaigns against mobile phone masts in *their* street while they still want their mobiles to work, or the campaigns I mentioned above.

Quote:
I mean, do you not support the activities of workers in a British plant (Longbridge, Ryton etc) that's moving its labour overseas?

That is to prevent their bosses sacking them and losing their financial security. So to be supported. I wouldn't support a group of british workers saying "sack this group of Indians and hire us" though. There is a world of difference.

Caiman del Barrio
Jul 6 2006 00:32
John. wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
But surely they both represent the same objective: reformist labour demands under capital are defensive (and in the case of the CPE, at least partially reactionary), yet they are considered to be broadly progressive in that they are class struggle - and therefore encourage further class struggle, while contributing to the recomposition of the class itself.

Firstly - how was the CPE struggle reactionary in any way?

Students and young workers campaigning for the same level of industrial welfare their (grand)parents were granted in post-war France? You and I both know that it was a genuine example of class struggle, but cos the movement was united around the basis of the CPE's withdrawal, it could be argued to be reactionary in that it's failing to respond to changes in the labour market. Its benefit was in it realigned the French working class and briefly led to extra-parliamentary organisation within it.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course some community activity will be reactionary, in which case you don't fuckin participate in it. Or are we incapable of making that decision now?

Huh? All I said was a large proportion of it was reactionary, unlike stuff in the workplace. Would you disagree with that?

No...I think a lot of workplace activity can be reactionary. In fact, if I were to be as stringent in my appraisal of it as you're attempting to be of community organising, I could argue that all defensive labour struggle is reactionary, in that it is attempting to preserve previous bourgeois generosity in aspic.

That's not to disparage genuine proletarian organising - more to question the relevance of a term like "reactionism" to class struggle, and bring us onto another question: is capitalist progression (ie neoliberalism, "globalisation") inherently bad (ie decadent) or inherently good (ie un-reactionary), or something in between? You gotta decide bro.

Quote:
NIMBYism is a useful term for many things, for example those campaigns against mobile phone masts in *their* street while they still want their mobiles to work, or the campaigns I mentioned above.

I'm presuming you're referring to WAG here. I don't really know the specifics of that struggle, neither do I understand the logistics of mobile phone masts, so I'll let that one go.

Quote:
Quote:
I mean, do you not support the activities of workers in a British plant (Longbridge, Ryton etc) that's moving its labour overseas?

That is to prevent their bosses sacking them and losing their financial security. So to be supported. I wouldn't support a group of british workers saying "sack this group of Indians and hire us" though. There is a world of difference.

Carry on...you haven't convinced me yet.

lem
Jul 6 2006 00:56
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
if I were to be as stringent in my appraisal of it as you're attempting to be of community organising, I could argue that all defensive labour struggle is reactionary, in that it is attempting to preserve previous bourgeois generosity in aspic

I don't know what aspic means, but wouldn't this rule out all defensive struggle - including community struggle too - kind of defeating your point, as your being more stringent on the workplace.

I may have understood that wink

Your not saying that its reactionary because its not progressive for capital are you confused

AnarchoAl
Jul 6 2006 02:50

Even though I broadly agree with your point, TheWillsWilde, I have to say that was a completely incoherent rant.

Admin - Wills's rant split to here

As to John's points...

Most people on my estate don't even work, but they mainly live in housing association houses, and the bought houses are usually factored by the housing association. And we all have to live with the effects of smack dealers and gangs of bored kids.

It would be reactionary to demand the kids be locked up, but by taking a lead on the issue (easy to do; nobody in power wants to touch it beyond making speeches), a community group can set the tone and dimensions of the debate- for example, campaigning for youth facilities and linking that to solving "anti-social behaviour" problems. The newsletter we put out had a kid's section last time, where they talked about the way the police hassle them and how they have nowhere to go at night.

How about instead of trying to find a One True Tactic, we practise tactical flexibility?

OMG! Tactics over ideology! Different behaviour in different situations! What turns out to work over what we think might work before we've experimented! WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOMED! THEY'LL COME FOR OUR CHILDREN NEXT!!!!!1111!!!!!! OMG PONIES!!!!11111!!!!

Mr. T

TheWillsWilde
Jul 6 2006 02:55
Quote:
Even though I broadly agree with your point, TheWillsWilde, I have to say that was a completely incoherent rant.

Thanks. Coherency is the hobgoblin of.... oh, fuck it.

Quote:

I'm a pro-organisation anarchist with an analysis of society based on the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Michael Foucault, Buddha, and others to numerous to mention.

grin grin grin

Rob Ray
Jul 6 2006 06:16

Tbh John I think you've got the nimby thing arse about face. Nimby/reactionary behaviour isn't inherent in community action, the people who usually dominate (single issue) 'community action groups' simply tend to be Nimbys as the right is prevalent in this country and they have money to make the most noise.

All the people I've met who work on a more thorough basis than 'lets get the placards out' have tended towards leftism, and fight for more resources rather than scrapping over whats there - bizarrely enough because even outside the world of work they are capable of understanding the concept that competition with allies/contemporaries is counterproductive.

Devrim, it may be different for you, but there are a raft of potential issues I can think of here which are community wide and simply have no-one organising or backing each other up. Anti-social behaviour/racism/homophobia/drugs being one, closure of community faciliities another, council tax, the bins, dangerous roads... hell yuppie developments in working class districts and subsequent displacement is something you've even campaigned against.

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at you John, I thought you had taken something from HSG's gathering on the subject, but you're sounding more like raw atm (who used the very same argument then). Lack of struggle does not imply lack of potential, otherwise I'd fuck off and become a Tory, given what I see at work every day.

Steven.
Jul 6 2006 07:23
Saii wrote:
Tbh John I think you've got the nimby thing arse about face. Nimby/reactionary behaviour isn't inherent in community action, the people who usually dominate (single issue) 'community action groups' simply tend to be Nimbys as the right is prevalent in this country and they have money to make the most noise.

I think it's not just that, Nimbyism is much easier in a geographical then workplace setting. Partly possibly because of various traditions - there is at least some tradition in the labour movement of not getting divided against each other, for example.

Quote:
Frankly I'm a bit surprised at you John, I thought you had taken something from HSG's gathering on the subject, but you're sounding more like raw atm (who used the very same argument then)

I doubt raw would've used the same argument... but anyway I was going to say some things on the subject on Divisive Cottonwoods Hacknet Independent thread, which may have been better than this one which was started with a deliberately provocative thread title which I think is misleading some people.

TheWillsWilde wrote:
Yeah, Devrim. Fuck community sensibility, its a bunch of bullshit.

I think I had better ignore this completely useless and strawman-based rant roll eyes

Alan:

Caiman del Barrio wrote:
John. wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
But surely they both represent the same objective: reformist labour demands under capital are defensive (and in the case of the CPE, at least partially reactionary)

Firstly - how was the CPE struggle reactionary in any way?

Students and young workers campaigning for the same level of industrial welfare their (grand)parents were granted in post-war France?

Okay for most of your post this discussion is centring around the meaning of the word "reactionary". I was using it to mean not beneficial for the working class as a whole, not to mean the dictionary definition "preserving the status quo". I thought this was obvious but I guess not. It being this latter definition you're taking it as, as we're in a time of defensive struggles you would expect most struggles to be "reactionary", and that then those "reactionary" struggles would be good and "progressive". So I suggest we drop the term from now. If you look at my posts and replace it with the the phrase "not beneficial for the working class as a whole" you should get a better idea of what I'm trying to say...

Quote:
Quote:
Huh? All I said was a large proportion of it was reactionary, unlike stuff in the workplace. Would you disagree with that?

No...I think a lot of workplace activity can be reactionary.

What do you say to this question using the new definitions?

Quote:
That's not to disparage genuine proletarian organising

Quick note - proletarian organising doesn't have to be in the workplace, unlike wills's straw man states above

Quote:
- more to question the relevance of a term like "reactionism" to class struggle, and bring us onto another question: is capitalist progression (ie neoliberalism, "globalisation") inherently bad (ie decadent) or inherently good (ie un-reactionary), or something in between? You gotta decide bro.

Again I think you're misunderstanding my use of language. I don't think that's the correct use of "decadence", but I think decadence is balls anyway so I think that's best left out of things.

Quote:
Quote:
NIMBYism is a useful term for many things, for example those campaigns against mobile phone masts in *their* street while they still want their mobiles to work, or the campaigns I mentioned above.

I'm presuming you're referring to WAG here. I don't really know the specifics of that struggle, neither do I understand the logistics of mobile phone masts, so I'll let that one go.

No I wasn't referring to WAG. There are loads of anti-mast campaigns. Some are good, but not ones which want them in other people's streets, just not theirs.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, do you not support the activities of workers in a British plant (Longbridge, Ryton etc) that's moving its labour overseas?

That is to prevent their bosses sacking them and losing their financial security. So to be supported. I wouldn't support a group of british workers saying "sack this group of Indians and hire us" though. There is a world of difference.

Carry on...you haven't convinced me yet.

I don't know how else I can make it any clearer confused

Workers defending on trying to improve their conditions at the cost of their bosses or the state: good

Workers defending on trying to improve their conditions at the cost of other workers: bad

You get what I'm getting at?

nastyned
Jul 6 2006 08:56

What a bizarre thread. Though I suppose having a left communist putting forward economic determinism shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Maybe i'm getting a bit old but anyone else remember the poll tax? And which group said only workplace action could stop it?

the button
Jul 6 2006 08:57
Devrim wrote:
There is a lot of talk on these boards about action within communities. I wonder how real this is, and whether they really exist.

This to me is the key question. It strikes me that it's not a question of organising in the community, it's a matter of organising for community. Thinking about what John. was saying, it's a lot simpler to see how the shift from "working class in itself" to "working class for itself" can be effected in the workplace. And just as it's a mistake to fetishise the "working class in itself", it's a mistake to do community action on an "aren't working class communities lovely, if only we were better organised, they'd be even better" basis.

I suppose I'm fortunate (personally, as well as politically) that I'm well settled in where I live, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. The little bits of community action I've been involved in, however, have run out of steam fairly sharpish.

JDMF
Jul 6 2006 11:12

perhaps i am not used to think in big revolutionary terms, but ssurely things like fighting and preventing crime, organising recycling facilities, waste management and cleaning the area we live in, demanding improvements from housing/management companies and so on are important no matter where you live.

If this is done in a way that it encourages participation, direct democracy, mutual aid and solidarity i think it is very worthwhile activity and don't really see what the point of this thread is...

Alf
Jul 6 2006 11:23

The 'workplace' (not so much the individual palce where you work, but workers defined by their role in production/distribution, etc) will always be the central focus of the class struggle. But it's certainly not the only one. The movement against the CPE in France in the spring was not focused around the workplace as such. The struggles of the unemployed of necessity take place outside the workplace. And there can be genuine class movements around issues like rent and housing. One example the comrades who formed the Workers Voice left communist group in the early 70s were heavily involved in the rent strikes on Merseyside at the time.

The problem today is

- in recent decades the 'working class community' has been increasingly atomised in many parts of the world, so it is difficult to see how collective responses would occur in many areas, outside of a more general class movement

- we live under the reign of state capitalism. What applies to the trade unions applies to the attempt to create permanent mass organisations outside the workplace. They are easily recuperated by capital and its state. As a result a lot of 'community action' politics, libertarian or not, functions as an appendage to local state services.

Devrim
Jul 6 2006 11:23
nastyned wrote:
What a bizarre thread. Though I suppose having a left communist putting forward economic determinism shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Maybe i'm getting a bit old but anyone else remember the poll tax? And which group said only workplace action could stop it?

Ned, I didn't suggest that there was no possibility of 'community' struggle. I did suggest that a lot of the time communities don't really exist, and that most 'communities' are not involved in struggle, and that people are quite atomized, and powerless within their 'communities'.

I think one of the reasons that anarchists harp on about 'community struggle' is that it is easier to substitute yourself for a community, and set up a little group 'representing' the community than it is in the workplace.

Saii wrote:
Devrim, it may be different for you, but there are a raft of potential issues I can think of here which are community wide and simply have no-one organising or backing each other up. Anti-social behaviour/racism/homophobia/drugs being one, closure of community faciliities another, council tax, the bins, dangerous roads... hell yuppie developments in working class districts and subsequent displacement is something you've even campaigned against.

I don't think that I ever campaigned around those issues, Saii. Maybe you are confusing me with somebody else. It sounds a bit like Class War to me.

Devrim

Lazy Riser
Jul 6 2006 11:34

Hi

Saii wrote:
Anti-social behaviour/racism/homophobia/drugs being one, closure of community faciliities another, council tax, the bins, dangerous roads.

Terrible isn’t it. Makes you wonder why people keep installing councillors so out of touch with their aspirations. Last time I saw, the bourgeoisie were as uptight about the bins and the roads as the “workers”. And as for homophobia and drugs, we love a bit of it, we really do. Also “community facilities” are for losers and everyone knows it.

Alf wrote:
One example: the comrades who formed the Workers Voice left communist group in the early 70s were heavily involved in the rent strikes on Merseyside at the time.

There, that’s more like it.

Love

LR

Rob Ray
Jul 6 2006 11:43

Raw said something along the lines of 'I have nothing in common with my community, no connection with it, there is no community under capital'. Which seems similar to...

You said:

Quote:
(Community) Doesn't really mean anything for me. I've had this discussion with catch a few times... I have pretty much no connection with my local area

and then tried to demonstrate that community under capital doesn't really exist beyond the odd protest movement...

The general consensus at the CAG seemed to be that he should perhaps try harder to find out what's going on around the place. Personally, I think this is a much greater issue in major urban areas like London, as renting is so common and movement so regular.

Quote:
Nimbyism is much easier in a geographical then workplace setting.

Not really, I think the issues are different but there are plenty of examples of workers, clandestinely or otherwise, banding together to keep out other elements of the working class even under the banner of co-ordinated action, be that through bullying of immigrant workers, unofficial blocking of gays in sections of the print unions pre-wapping, massive sexism throughout much of the early/mid 20th century, defence of damaging industries because 'it's my job' (eg. nuclear power), the nazi strike, the BNP's 'Solidarity' union etc.

Equally, though most of these oppressions are/were repeated in working class locales, there is/was also, in the same way as for workplaces, the potential for concerted action to help keep open major employers, force proper investment in poverty striken areas, clean up the streets, sort out the little wankers knocking over walls and spiking up round the way and generally organise on a basis that is increasingly independent of the councils - an important thing, given that we wish eventually to abolish them. Do I need to even mention the massive support given to the miners in their geographical strongholds? Or perhaps the huge solidarity within farming communities during the great agricultural fights? Perhaps I should mention the support of Gulyai Polye freely given to Makhno?

Sorry to keep banging on about this in thread after thread, but I'm getting really fed up with this 'either or' bollocks that seems to be seeping everywhere, from conversations about the unions, to communities, to how fascism should ro should not be dealt with. These are NOT black and white issues. There can be no set position on any of them because each situation, the people within it, their actions and reactions, is completely fucking different.

You can't build a position on any of this and reasonably expect it to apply often even in a majority, let alone all cases. Community activism is exactly the same. Depending on who is involved, and what their alleigances, organising style, bosses, friends, environment etc might be, the outcome of any situation will be utterly different in each case. It's lazy, wishful thinking to imagine that you can define this stuff as good, bad, pointless etc, you can only work with what presents itself.

cantdocartwheels
Jul 6 2006 11:45
Devrim wrote:
At work though, I as a worker have collective interests with the people a work with, and we also have some power. Earlier this year we prevented the sacking of a fellow worker by going on strike.

Basically your ideas here seem to fall into a particularly bourgeois ideological stance that there are somehow two seperate spheres, in this case labelled ''work'' and ''community'' and that there are no common interests and interactions between these two environments, tis seems to me to be extremely reactionary.

Take the looming prospects of NHS strikes, are you suggesting that these are somehow purely work based, and that communities and users groups who identify with hospitals have no role to play because in this scenario they are not ''workers'' fitting into some bizarre homogenised labour fetishised model of ''the proletarian''.

How for example, do you get to and from work, and when you finsih work, where do you meet people for a drink afetrwards. I'm sorry but i completely fail to understand how you can seperate the two like this.

Quote:
For most people, and I realise there are some exceptions, what does community organising mean?

''An interest in local affairs'' ie being able to grasp the concrete ways in which capital affects your day to day life, either in work, on the way to work, at home, at school or watching your nan struggle to pay rent and heating bills. Identifying a concrete class enemy in your lcoal areas, be they local businessmen and politicians, rather than vaguely grasping at an abstract concept that ''capitalism is bad'', which is compleely unempowering.

Quite frankly i find the idea that we could have a social revolution without some degree of localism as lacking any logical or historical basis.

Rob Ray
Jul 6 2006 11:49

Lazy - depends on what sort of community facility you're talking about. The Ipswich Community Resource Centre is full whenever I'm in there, the Waterfront, ten minutes' walk down the road, is usually fairly empty. Tis all about function.

Vaneigemappreci...
Jul 6 2006 12:06

i suppose it depends a lot upon the community in which you live, for example the place i live could barely be described as a community, it is largely a commuter village, it has an industrial estate however most people who work there are not from the village, it has a small council housing area and a slightly larger area that is incredibly wealthy. The main campaigns i have witnessed are as follows: A camapign to stop the large freight lorries using the road through the village to get to the industrial estate because they are eroding roads an causing too much noise! and an unsuccesful campaign to stop the Birmingham Northern Relief Road being built. Neither being particularly class based struggles!! In fact if you were to go into one of the pubs in the area your more likely to hear some smug, range rover owning, land owner bleating about immigration than someone wanting to keep their house council owned. Where do you start in this respect?

Vaneigemappreci...
Jul 6 2006 12:19
Quote:
You don't think business being able to move large lorries through a residential area with no concern for those living there has any class basis at all?

I think its a divisive issue, because whats basically being asked is that the lorry drivers take the long route and go around, which would add a considerable mileage and time onto their journey. Also the residential area is basically 2 roads of fairly plush houses so i wouldnt say the dispute has a class basis in that sense.

cantdocartwheels
Jul 6 2006 12:35
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
Quote:
You don't think business being able to move large lorries through a residential area with no concern for those living there has any class basis at all?

I think its a divisive issue, because whats basically being asked is that the lorry drivers take the long route and go around, which would add a considerable mileage and time onto their journey. Also the residential area is basically 2 roads of fairly plush houses so i wouldnt say the dispute has a class basis in that sense.

Well no obviously not in this case, but nine times out of ten property has less value next to larger roads so transport is usually a class issue, where i am most of the road building campiagns in the late 80's and early 90's affected working class communities like the one across wanstead that demolished wanstead common and took several rows of council hosuing with it. Likewise constantly increasing road freight transport creating building works that have contributed along with other factors to weaken flood defences on the river roding down the road from me that threatens large areas of social or rented housing which a few yearsd back were already on the receiving end of large floods.

I think the probelm you have is that your community is fairly atypical, the majority of people live in towns and cities, to summarise, haha you rural bumpkin wink

Vaneigemappreci...
Jul 6 2006 12:43
Quote:
How about campaigning to force the businesses which use it to pay for a by-pass
Quote:
The main campaigns i have witnessed are as follows: A camapign to stop the large freight lorries using the road through the village to get to the industrial estate because they are eroding roads an causing too much noise! and an unsuccesful campaign to stop the Birmingham Northern Relief Road being built

Not in my backyard!

Quote:
to summarise, haha you rural bumpkin

Its not rural, honest, only yesterday i had some farmer berating me on the phone for being "one of those influx of new people who dont know anything".......ive lived here for 20 years eek , god honest truth!

revolutionrugger
Jul 6 2006 12:51

Examples of Community Campaigns I've Been Part of That are Way Cool:

1.) Landlords: When I lived in New Brunswick we built a database of who's rented home was owned by whom and then cross referenced it with complaints filed with the Rent Board, then contacted the tenants of the worst culprits with the names and address of their co-tenants so they could compare notes and organize rent strikes and filing with the rent board together. This was simultaneous with a campaign for rent -control in the city.

2.) Rent Strike Baltimore. A couple of community organizations organized a huge number of people to put their rent into Escrow, even if they didn't have a reason. This jammed up the rent courts and effectively ended evictions for a six month period. awesome.

Finally, I'd like to add, you stupid straight men that the 'community issues' also includes things like, CLINIC ACCESS, ANTI-RAPE PATROLS, LIBERATING PUBLIC SEX, TRACKING AND CONFRONTING QUEER BASHERS, AND A HOST OF OTHER THINGS YOU'RE PRIVELEDGE LETS YOU IGNORE. Fuckers.

the button
Jul 6 2006 12:54
revolutionrugger wrote:
Finally, I'd like to add, you stupid straight men that the 'community issues' also includes things like, CLINIC ACCESS, ANTI-RAPE PATROLS, LIBERATING PUBLIC SEX, TRACKING AND CONFRONTING QUEER BASHERS, AND A HOST OF OTHER THINGS YOU'RE PRIVELEDGE LETS YOU IGNORE. Fuckers.

This bit is either a joke, or you're an utter prick.

Shall I start a poll?

revolutionrugger
Jul 6 2006 13:15
the button wrote:
revolutionrugger wrote:
Finally, I'd like to add, you stupid straight men that the 'community issues' also includes things like, CLINIC ACCESS, ANTI-RAPE PATROLS, LIBERATING PUBLIC SEX, TRACKING AND CONFRONTING QUEER BASHERS, AND A HOST OF OTHER THINGS YOU'RE PRIVELEDGE LETS YOU IGNORE. Fuckers.

This bit is either a joke, or you're an utter prick.

Shall I start a poll?

Why should this be a joke? The fact that Straight Men have consistently told me that "workplace issues are key" is the fucking joke. But I guess trannies getting raped and murdered by the police in Philly is clearly less important then someone's $.50 an hour raise. Community issues are clearly bullshit. Or a 1 in 4 rape rate is clearly less pressing a concern than the newsletter your "workplace resistance group" put out. Or the consistent brutality and violence of the police on blacks, the homophobic, transphobic, and racist policies of homeless shelters, landlords, and hospitals are clearly less important than yet another failed attempt at forming a "local union of precarious workers". So yes. I was joking. Really funny. hah .hah. hah.