Calgary: Drawing a Proverbial Line in the Sand (or: Why I Broke Up With Activism)

<p><em>The following is a text written by a Calgary insurrectionist. The "movement" in Calgary is currently characterized by a growing split between activists (typically university students and from more privileged class backgrounds) and insurrectionists (angry, unruly folks from a range of class backgrounds). This text was meant as an appeal to those activists who are perhaps tired of the alienation and constant disappointment of activism.</em>

<p>I'm willing to bet that you are making some gross generalizations about the people in your community. I'll bet that the so-called insurrectionists aren't all very angry or unruly.

<p>Look, it's very easy these days to diss activism, but you should criticize specifics about activism. Often, the things people are doing can be described as activism, but they aren't doing things for the sake of activism, nor do they identify as activists.

<p>Chuck

wow, for getting off to a decent start and packing this with tons of insurrectionist-rhetoric words, i feel like you only half get it... i agree with chuck that you need to better define what you are talking about in terms of "activism". is it the tactical reliance on the petition; or is it a propensity to "be active", to "do something"? what methodologies and ideologies attach to it (and how)? you are critiquing something that is worth critiquing but i dont think you've fully fleshed it out. i have some suggestions for approaching this (but of course you should think about it on your own, clarify what you really mean to say).

there is another concept that i think is strongly tied in with everything i dont like about activism, which i want people to think more about, and that is voluntarism - ie, calling on people to do things voluntarily, usually in the service of some ideology (although not necessarily). the truth is there are very few people who are going to go out and do shit on account of their ideas, no matter what their ideas are, and i think this is a point you successfully hit towards the end of your first section. but what are you talking about when you say:  "Anarchists in Greece, Germany, Chile, Belgium and France have always been able to draw massive support for the simple reason that they have something concrete to refer to; instead of people having to sift through endless rhetoric, they can see and experience what anarchy is and have a point from which to begin"? the argument seems to be a circular one about the higher level of struggle that exists in some places. aside from being hugely vague about these concrete manifestations of anarchy in these places, i think you are wrong about both the scale and reasons for public response to anarchists there. many of them simply have entirely different social histories than north america, some like greece and chile have centuries-long traditions of popular struggle against governing forces. so while i think there are many lessons to be drawn from them, "do something!" is n it.

for another thing - your strategic counterproposal seems to amount to a call for autonomous production of goods and services (food, clothing, daycare etc) with no mention whatsoever of social war. isn't this the same thing that activist projects like food not bombs generally propose, that if we share dumpstered food, then people will realize they can share, and everyone will share and capitalism will just fall apart? where does revolutionary struggle fit in your analysis, how does it come about - simply as a defense of occupied space? why, exactly, would people do that? also, it's not clear if you are talking about "occupying" in the sense of taking over spaces that are actively used in producing capitalist value, or just in the sense of squatting (taking over derelict buildings, possibly covertly), or both? what about situations like in europe where the state decides to legitimize squatting within certain parameters. doesnt this defuse its potential to focalize conflict?

no, we must not simply be missionaries who are out to persuade everyone to be on our side, but not simply because this has no concrete ramification. there is nothing inherently radical (in the sense of anti-authoritarian/anti-capitalist) about escalating to concrete tactics (whatever those may be). the perspective i embrace, is to be neither missionaries nor fanatics, but to assemble the networks, places, tools, knowledge, and affective feedback loops that are necessary for long term revolutionary struggle - in short, a "war machine" that knows how to hide when necessary, and how to strike when opportune.

 that's actually not what i was saying, and i'm not really sure how to be more specific about concrete tactics and "what people should do" - im not sure i want to, i think people have to decide what's appropriate and possible in specific situations. i think squats could very well be part of a war machine, but not just because people are making their own clothes in them (as this writer suggests). then again, if appropriation of university spaces continues to gather steam here it could become something similar to what it has been in europe and latin america, a base for autonomous networks to carry out all kinds of concrete attacks on social power.

i don't think critiquing something obliges one to come up with "a better idea". i think it's enough to say, here, that we should be suspicious of all strategies, no matter how radical the terms they are draped in, that say essentially, "just drop out and live and capitalism will crumble!", in fact, perhaps that we should be suspicious of all strategic prescriptions framed as "this is what we all need to do"... a more complete rupture than this with activism is needed. it's worth it just to cut off the false paths.

 Well you've already gotten the requisite babbling counter-positions to this soft lashing out at the absurdity of activism, so I thought I'd give you some encouragement. The further you can get from thinking in terms of leftist/anarchist/whateverist doctrinal thinking on these issues the better. So much of the "left" or "the movement" or, again, whatever, is consumed with anachronistic fantasies of revolution by various outdaded, outmoded means. Attemps to appeal to people intellectually or by so-called "direct action" designed to influence policy have obviously not resulted in any great gains. You've started to get at the question of tactics that should be at the center of any discussion of radical politics, but you seem your resentment of the way things are/the people you've dealt with/etc. to have avoided going the rest of the way toward realiziing that the problem is part of the human condition and has been with us for some time.

People don't necessarily join political movements for idealistic reasons. In fact, most people do it because of a variety of psychological reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with ideals or even with politics. The human condition simply isn't conducive to idealism for the obvious reason that we're not ideal. So the question then becomes: If none of us is actually an anarchist, what are we talking about, what are we actually doing? As a primarily youth-driven movement, anarchism has relegated itself to being a refuge for the various and sundry detritus of civilization--people for whom dedication to a cause is better than dealing with their own issues. It's a small wonder, then, that these people don't really consider or care much about the efficacy of what they do. The political arena in general is full of armchair revolutionaries who would fix this or that with the stroke of a pen or the firing of a gun, would being the key word. Any time politics comes up you can be certain there will be lots of talk, and lots of talk dressed as doing.

As for your strategy, I think you miss the point a bit in your effort to be defiant. As a previous comment pointed out, it's not all that clear what you're talking about occupying, but it sounds like you're encouraging people to occupy "private property". What makes more sense to me is to turn "legitimately" private property into public property by voluntary means--eitther by obtaining property for grassroots causes or by pooling resources to purchase property, by putting your money where your mouth is, so to speak. I know it might sting a bit to let go of your precious ideals long enough to trade money for property, but in the end you have something which is collectively owned, both within the confines of your ideology and within the view of the law.

But how is that revolutionary? What the fuck good is promoting capitalism? The answer to both questions is: it isn't, really, but that's not important. What's important is that indigenous, self-started communities that aren't just waiting for the police to shut them down can actually develop into something more than a squatting ground. People with an investment, both proverbial and financial, in the community they're building will take more of an interest in perpetuating and growing it. I know that's a capitalist argument, but it's true of the people of our time and our actual (not idealistic) milieu: society, the people around us (remember them?). Perhaps it's a Fabian point but if you put aside rhetoric and the insidious need for certain people to promote purity-based ideals that have nothing to do with reality you can see the potential of such a methodology to actually promote change in a direct way. Of course it wouldn't always work well, but nothing does. I find it ironic that I have to remind anarchists of this...

At any rate, your post could have come from someone from basically any background (other than one of pure complacency with the system). Every intelligent person who finds themselves working with small political movements ends up realizing that their methods serve more to preserve their own fledgling movement and its assertions of relevancy than to create any real change outside of the group. Your best bet is to forget there ever was a movement and just work towards promoting anarchism without ever using the word by creating the situations in which people can operate anarchsitically. They love to do it, they just don't know it. Show them where to do it.

"Attemps to appeal to people intellectually or by so-called "direct action" designed to influence policy have obviously not resulted in any great gains."

I don't think many of us are out to 'influence policy' so much as we are to get rid of the whole system.

And as far as 'legitimately' owning property & such so the state won't 'come & raid the place' or take it over, um that has been proven not to work. The state will go anywhere they please, and owning houses, I don't know if you've been paying attention much lately doesn't mean that you're secure or can keep your house.

That's kind of where we're coming from, even when it comes to law-abiding citizens, the state will treat them like crap like they do the rest of us, and situation remains precarious, whether we obey the law or not.

  You may like or dislike different types of activists, but all activist means is a person who is active for some purpose. Though some activists may work for some leader, but some may not. You are attacking a vague word which you are trying to show is the source of problems you don't like. The problem is not activism itself but rather what you don't like about some activists.

  As for the difference between reformist action and revolutionary action: Reformist action seeks to make the system work better. Revolutionary actions seeks through struggle to gain concessions from the system to the point that there is no system left. Revolution is a process that comes out of struggles over conditions and reaches a revolutionary level when those struggles realize that only revolution can have any real impact on those conditions.

  I write all this, not as a student (I never went to college or even finished high school) or middle class, I have been a shipyard worker for over 30 years. 

Arthur J. Miller

hooray for the return of the circular firing squad!

or, a note of appreciation from the rich:

thanks for wasting time, space and electrons attacking "activists" - it is so much of a better use of your time, space and electrons than attacking us (or the cops).

thanks.

really.

all y'all have fun attacking "activists" and with your little "my anarchy is better than your anarchy" ideological wars.

frankly, we could give two shits about community organizing vs. insurectionism vs. whatever the current flavor of the month is. But the more time y'all waste putting down Food Not Bombs means less time working against our interests so keep it up.

yours for more infighting amongst the rabble,

the ruling class.

 because circular time-wasting is much more effective than "infighting" meant to cut down on it?

I agree in a broad sense with the critique of activism; that is, activities designed to get "higher ups" or "the establishment" to change things.  However, when you discuss the other side of what you see as activism(i.e. pamphleteering), i think your critique falls flat.  To say that propoganda's only use is to get people to have ideological affinity with us is absurd.  The whole point of producing pamphlets or flyers or whatever, is yes, one one level to help people think differently about things, but it's also meant to bring people together, to help prompt action, and to find people who are looking to act, but didn't know that communities of struggle existed. 

On to Problem Two.

I know others have mentioned this, but when you describe "self organization", including such activities as "producing our own clothes, food, and necessities or having our own daycares, free-schools, and social centres".  If this is what you're looking to do, but you look down on reaching out to regular people in your hood, then all you're really looking to do is produce a self-sustaining anarchist ghetto.  This is problematic for a couple reasons.  If all you do is produce your own shit, you're not at all in conflict with capital or the state.  Capital could give less of a fuck about intentional communitites-there's still some around that last from the 60's, that are almost completely self sustaining, and certainly completely irritating. 

If you create this self sustaining arrangement as a base to go and attack the capital or the state, then all you're doing is making it really easy for the state to crack down on your asses, becasue you'll all be gathered in one static place. 

However, if you're living in a heterogenous neighborhood, a lot more interesting possibilities pop up.  Here, you can start doing some things that increase sustainability, share that with your neighbors, and start good conversations about how a city can stop importing all of it's necessities(which is a discussion we need to start having soon...).  At the same time, when you fight back against the developers, the cops, and whoever else might be trying to destroy your neighborhood, there's the possibility for opening up dialogues with people, and possibly pamphlets or publications could help with that.  Having a block party or BBQ might be able to help just as well.  Either way, you're not as obviously a target, and our influence is spread out through more people and a wider area. 

I mean, honestly, what you're describing just looks like you want to create an anarchist version of the hasidic area of brooklyn, where they produce most of their shit, use all their own services, and even speak a language different from everyone around them(yiddish).  The cops mostly leave them alone because the hasids fight back hard when the cops try to take one of their own.  At the same time, however, these activities aren't a threat to capital, and if magically the hasids started becoming militantly anticapitalist, it'd be really easy for the cops to crack down on them, since they've marginalized themselves from the rest of NYC.

Anywho, good questions for us to debate about.  Lets just make sure we're not spending too much time on the computer....

The entire crux of this article seems to depend on its definition of activism, which it defines as: "any activity which petitions the support of leaders and policy-makers (for the liberal activist)..." (I'll get to the second part of the definition in a minute...) 

Now certainly this describes a lot of activists, particularly the ones us anarchists direct such vitriol against, but it hardly describes all of them. People who self-organized and rioted to upkeap, maintain, and then defend Ungdomshuset, in much the manner of the author's emphasis on occupation and the creation of autonomous space, were themselves called activists by both the danish media and the danish public. The insurrectionaries in this country, with their rhetoric, pamphlets, posturing, and protesting (yes, IA kids do go to protests, duh), would also be called "activists" by most anyone not involved in such scenes.  Maybe this cuts some people the wrong way, but let's just be frank, right? I guess we can call ourselves "politicos" if that sounds hipper to people.

So what does this mean? Are we against "activism?" Maybe, maybe not, depending on who we're tlaking about, who is doing the defining, what is at stake, whether we are invested at the moment in defending rhetoric or real activity, semantics or substance. It would seem to be both more accurate, and make for a more precise argumentation, if we positioned ourselves simply against, "petitioning the support of leaders and policy makers," full stop. Of course, if one is actually an anarchist, they're already taking that stance. 

On the issue of "petitioning the support of the people," i do not understand exactly what the author is railing against. Is the author suggesting we stop engaging with people outside of already converted anarchist circles? That we only engage on the level of action, with no words? This needs to be fleshed out more, though I suspect the author would hardly go so far as to say we shouldnt be conducting any propaganda or outreach as we "occupy everything...." Really, imagine, what would this mean? No banners o the buildings being occupied, no fliers to explain why the occupation is happening, who is invited, what the occupiers stand for? No interaction with the neighbors and shopkeepers nearby, whose support will, practically speaking, be vital to the continued success of the occupation? No social events open to the larger public, with the hope of gaining their sympathy? No publications or graffitti that encourage strangers to do likewise, to occupy something themselves?

The author mentions a frustration with pamphlets and a lack of action, and yet, once again, I fear i must point out that at least in my circle of comrades and friends, it's the IA kids who do more publishing of pamhlets than all the other anarchists i know combined. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as we are conducting activities, like the author says, that present the words and ideas on the pages of these publications as a real possibility, something we can point to and say: this is what we're talking about. 

In a way, this has ALWAYS been how anarchists have best "petitioned the people," if we must use such a phrase. Our most shining moments have always been ones of creating and sustaining "anarchy"  in the process of destroying older social orders. This becomes all the more difficult when capitalism and the State have become as Total as they are now; there will be no more rural peasant villages open to casual anarchist experimentation, it is the 21st century and everywhere bears the stain of late consumer capitalism.

I would merely ask the author to paint with a more precise brush the next time they try to take on such weighty, broad, and ill-defined terms such as activism, anarchy, and the like.

I think that in the calgary area more land occupation deals should be considdered. The area directly around calgary notably to the east and south is an area of the worst soil erosion in the province. I would stand behind anyone who occupied the lands in this area that tilled the soil or had no windbreaks and layed down trees for such windbreaks or purchiced no-till machinery to cultivate the lanc. Hell if you put up a permacultual farm on their land I'd probibly guard your claim to it with force.