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

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.

In recent months, I’ve found that the activist milieu depresses and frustrates me more and more (and more…). To a growing extent, I find myself feeling contempt for those who preach self-organization, autonomy, and Anarchy yet make constant appeals to authority, act like political parties themselves or have totally lost touch with the revolutionary character of their professed ideals. I feel it necessary to put into words two points I’ve been trying to get across to no avail. The first of these being my eagerness to distance myself from activism as much as possible; the reasons and the consequences. The second is a proposed alternative to such outdated and ultimately ineffective practices.

Here it goes…

I’ll start by defining some important terms, starting with “activism”. Activism can be defined as any activity which petitions the support of leaders and policy-makers (for the liberal activist) or which petitions the support of “the people” (in the case of “anarchist” activists). This includes everything from Greenpeace’s “direct actions” (which by virtue of making demands and asking for change, are in actuality very far from acting “directly” to solve issues) to more radical activities, such as pamphleteering or standing alongside Peggy Askins [marxist leninist activist well known in calgary] with a black flag and calling it “solidarity”.

One obvious problem with this mode of engagement with “the establishment” is just that; It ends up solely engaging with the authorities in endless debate while leaving out just about everyone who isn’t part of this or that “community grass-roots organization” (or whatever the pseudo-radical political parties are calling themselves these days). This means that this type of campaigning has two possible outcomes. 1) the authorities totally ignore these seemingly insane people who think that holding a sign amounts to “acting” politically… which is generally the case. Or 2) the authorities are convinced and agree to stop oppressing everyone. Pause for laughter. This obviously is not possible (and since anarchy is about self-organization, not just voluntary collapse of power, it is not even theoretically desirable). This simple analysis of the possible outcomes of the endless endeavor of activism really forces one to ponder the intelligence of those involved in such asinine practices.

To be fair, there is another side to activism. This is the side where we take our grievances to the people themselves. Of course, this is where the revolution will start; pamphlets! If only enough people agreed with us theoretically, if only everyone thought like we did, we’d have a revolution for sure. This is, unfortunately, the unsaid conclusion to which most anarchists/activists have resigned themselves. But this too is plagued with problems. The most obvious problem being that our entire mode of “action” is now limited to the strictly theoretical… or as some might call it, not action.. We can talk all we want, and probably convince a fair number of people that, theoretically, anarchy is a viable, practical, and desirable form of organization. In fact, I’ve convinced teachers, workers, religious people, students, parents and friends… yet I still feel as far from “revolution” as anyone else. The trick is to act.

Now to look at what our options are for acting. Having dismissed the possibility of even a marginal victory through conventional means, we have to find ways of using our energy in ways which actually serve to simultaneously “build the community and Smash the State” (as a good friend once told me). As an initial answer, I’ll use the slogan adopted by many insurgents in New York and in California; “OCCUPY EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW!”. Sorry, didn’t mean to yell. Allow me to explain.

The politics of Time and Space (or The Unlimited Human Strike)

Within the logic of capitalism, time and space become the ultimate commodities. Time is relegated to the flow of commodities; production, distribution, training of workers and employees etc… Space is likewise conditioned by our social relations; No space is allowed to exist for long unless its products (be they goods, services, or trained and obedient workers) are conducive to the functioning of capitalism or if they are beneficial to those seeking to amass resources. Thinking in these terms allows us to see civilization as a Web of occupation spread out over certain territories; in this case, our beloved metropolis. A web, or network where time and space are synchronized to the present social order. Revolution then becomes a simple matter of carving out spaces in this terrain where time and space are freed and used in ways which are conducive to Anarchy, and where the logic of civilization (capitalism, authority, hierarchy, centralization, mass culture etc.) becomes obsolete. Think of it as being on strike from everything.

For instance, producing our own clothes, food, and necessities or having our own daycares, free-schools, and social centres means that we live and work on our own time and become out-of-sync with capitalist relations; we can live outside of civilization while being physically at its heart. The occupied space (whatever it may be) can be seen as a hole in the web of civilization and becomes an autonomous zone. In this way, we refuse mediation and representation, and skip right to the heard of our beliefs: self-organization.

Think of it as having a revolution on a certain bloc, rather than in a certain city, or in a certain country.

The most obvious advantage of this mode of engagement with civilization is that it is concrete. 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 (avoiding the inevitable “okay I’m convinced… but what now?”).

What we need to realize is that dialogue as we know it is useless. We can’t afford to sit on the sidelines and critique this or that government policy, and hope that enough people listen to our whining and decide to organize themselves; it will never happen. Instead we need to see that the terrain of our city is defined by zones of occupation; we need to look at our city tactically, and physically take it back. Actions have always resounded infinitely more than words ever will.

In conclusion:

I want to make it totally clear that, short of liberating space where Anarchy can function and spread, there is no tactic that will “win the revolution”. In fact, I don’t even think there is a possible combination of tactics which can empower people and create the necessary concrete base for a social revolt that does not include occupation of space and autonomous production of necessities. “Diversity of tactics” in anarchist circles should, in my opinion, be limited to activities which free time and space and allow for the creation of Anarchist communities and zones. In other words, voting, petitions, non-confrontational rallies, and anything which empowers those in power, or does not otherwise break capitalist relations, are NOT tactics which can achieve anarchy. Not in a million and ten years.

A note on privilege

For those of you waiting to finish so you can leave a comment like “not everyone has the privilege to do these things!”, I just want to make a point of saying that I totally agree with you. There are tons of peripheral actions and activities which are conducive to creating free spaces which don’t include breaking and entering, or trespassing, or even trying to live in an abandoned house. When I say that I think autonomous zones should be our number one priority, I don’t mean that every single person must go occupy an abandoned building. PEACE.

i really liked this piece.

i really liked this piece. one of the more practical and relevant articles i've seen on here in a while. although i no longer live an urban life, i spent most of my life in major cities (nyc and sf), so i have always had issues with the anarcho-ruralists (including but not limited to anarcho-primitivists) who dismiss city life as unsustainable and undesirable, and therefore not worth including in analysis or strategy. (as jz says, "its all gotta go" - said in the voice of one of his long-time colleagues imitating him.) much as i've always had issues with the anarcho-urbanists who have a similarly dismissive, sometimes downright ignorant, attitude towards those that choose to live "outside" the belly of the beast.

with all the recent writing about student occupations in california, it is refreshing to see an alternative perspective on "occupation" as it applies to those seeking freedom from authority in all its forms. in fact, i would be curious to hear the author's thoughts on those student/worker occupations. there seems to be a huge difference in objective between occupation as described by the author, and the objective of the students (and all those in solidarity) occupying university buildings in cali. i would love to see those differences discussed.

-yly

You may like hanging out in

You may like hanging out in San Fran and New York, but that doesn't mean they can be sustainable.

i never said that cities can

i never said that cities can be sustainable (i attributed that comment to others, who i specifically said i disagree with). what i also did not explicitly say - but i will now - is that cities are an unavoidable reality in this world. to dismiss and ignore them would be both ignorant and impossible. i know for a fact that there are city folks with whom i share much affinity. why would i ignore/dismiss them in my own struggle? we can have solidarity with each other, we can work on projects together, we can bring to our projects and each other the skills, resources and experience that each of our respective (chosen) living environments provides us. i can show my city friend how to grow some food or make their own knife, and they can show me how to avoid detection or what train tunnel i can stay in safely. the ways in which urban and rural comrades can work together are unlimited, even if their mutual projects are few and far between.

the fact that cities are not "sustainable" (you'd have to define that term in any case) is a big fat DUH! then again, neither is any other way of living that includes 7 billion people on this planet and presumes to shoehorn all of them into some casted lifestyles. suburban living? not sustainable. rural living (where everyone has sufficient land to produce for their own needs)? not sustainable. alot more has to change than what pre-defined ways of living people choose.

btw, i wouldn't trade my youth living in the streets and subways of nyc for anything! it gave me an education i could never have gotten from educational institutions. but i am a different person now, decades older and with a different perspective on many things.

-yly

Yes, they can be, and from

Yes, they can be, and from an ecological perspective, urban density is our only hope for a sustainable future.

True. Highly dense urban

True. Highly dense urban populations spread epidemics, like the plague of medieval city-states, and less people means less resource consumption. Thus the environment has less pressure against it.

"Highly dense urban

"Highly dense urban populations spread epidemics, like the plague of medieval city-states"

Good thing it's not 1450 anymore. We have soap and sanitation, in case you hadn't noticed.

And antibiotics and

And antibiotics and compulsory vaccination.

Which increase bacteria

Which increase bacteria antibiotic resistance, thus making diseases stronger and stronger, increasing the chances of a pandemic superstrain. It's evolution, baby!

Which is

Which is counter-revolutionary in a way,medicine makes us weaker.

Yeah, bring back polio!

Yeah, bring back polio! Real revolutionaries oppose vaccination! ANARCHY!

Dont jump to

Dont jump to conclusions,your short-sightedness offends me,you are obviously of an insurrectionalistic temperament,you let your own subjective insecurities adopt a catch phrase as a symbolic paradoxical expression of your own belief,without considering first the totality of the argument,and assuming such views represent the anarchist belief.

Q: How many of you does it

Q: How many of you does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: That's not funny.

Maybe polio will eventually

Maybe polio will eventually evolve in a such a way that it brings itself back.

Maybe you'll learn how

Maybe you'll learn how viruses and diseases work before you bank on them to solve all your problems.

I hope you catch a virus,

I hope you catch a virus, especially one that makes your fingers stop working so you can't speak your BS

Willful ignorance is a

Willful ignorance is a greater threat to humanity than any virus. Start here:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/hs/biology/e/4/4.htm

yly- you really thought this

yly-
you really thought this person was attempting to point to something different/opposed to the student occupations? i thought it was pointing to actions exactly like those.... maybe you can discuss the differences you are talking about between this article and the student occupations?

-xsx

[jeez, i'm online long

[jeez, i'm online long enough for 3 comments... i'm trapped in my computer! or perhaps i'm just an online activist.]

actually i don't quite understand your point/question. as i read it, the article proposes occupations whose intent is for individuals in voluntary association to take over time and space for the purpose of liberation and allowing anarchist communities (however that be defined) to develop. as i read it, the occupations of students (and their comrades in solidarity) currently in vogue are intended to provide institutionalized education for cheaper/free. i realize that is over-simplified on both counts (particularly the students), but hopefully it at least demonstrates why/how i see them as very different. perhaps you disagree with either my interpretation of intent/objectives, or that they are in fact quite different. or both.

-yly

occupation as blocking of

occupation as blocking of spaces that actively produce value (universities, other workplaces, transit flows, etc) vs occupation as squatting or taking abandoned spaces. this person seems to be suggesting the latter, as a platform to autonomously produce goods and services. for all the "insurrectionary", anti-activist rhetoric, this is a pretty activisty approach and there is no mention of conflict or social war (aside from a very confused and vague reference to france, greece etc).

As the author of this piece,

As the author of this piece, I should say that this was first posted as a facebook note. Definitely not a great place to be talking about social war in my opinion. Like I tried to make clear in the preamble to this piece, it is directed at a more or less liberal audience. Making an appeal for autonomy, and from there creating a context for social war, was my primary goal. I can definitely see how the omission of Social Conflict in the essay would lead one to believe that my analysis just ends with "we gotta squat places". It doesn't. In Bow City/Calgary, a place with a formidable neo-fascist movement, there are few insurrectionists who have not experienced social war up-close-and-personally. We just don't advertise it a whole lot.

The references to places like Greece, and chile are based only on what I've read through various social war blogs (Occupiedlongon.org/blog and "Amor y Resistencia"/ Our War respectively). Alot of the texts and communiques make references to occupied/autonomous communities which have become bases of social conflict (such as Exarchia in Athens). Anyway, this is was I meant when I referred to these places.

I think there are at least two major aspects of insurrection. The most obvious being the side of attack; which is to say our interface with the "party of order" (to use some obscure insurrectionist rhetoric). This includes anything we proles do to attack our current conditions (be it collective, individual, conscious or not). The second major aspect of insurrectionist theory is that it negates waiting. In this sense, taking space and reclaiming our lives in the present tense is a huge part of the process and practice of insurrection...so long as this exists in a context of social war. at least in my own opinion.

forgot to sign my

forgot to sign my post...

yours in etc...,

Johnny Omen

>> occupation as blocking of

>> occupation as blocking of spaces that actively produce value (universities, other workplaces, transit flows, etc)

that sounds like a typical activist street protest type of event ("block traffic for peace! don't let those white collars into the building!"). from what i have seen, that is NOT the intent of the current university "occupiers". their intent seems to be to lower (or eliminate) fees for the product being produced - educated workers for the capitalist system - and perhaps to have that product produced with more direct involvement of the students (and teachers). analogous to the typical worker owned business, far as i can tell. not what i think of as radical.

taking over abandoned (or even not abandoned) spaces, as well as time (a huge point, imo), is not at all activisty in and of itself. and taking it without asking for it (nor "demanding" it) is something i've never seen an "activist" do. (note the author addresses the activist point up front). of course it depends on what the time and space are used for. my reading of the piece makes it seem like the intent is to create time and space for voluntarily associating individuals to create directly what they need for their own lives, and in doing so to create self-sufficient anarchist communities. that makes much more sense to me - and is much more desirable - than what the student occupations seem to be attempting.

and OH NO!!! there was no mention of social war in that entire one page of text!!!!!! HOLY SHIT!!! they must not be truly radical!

talk about rhetoric.

-yly

i don't know where you got

i don't know where you got your ideas about the occupations from. first of all, there is no one line or "goal" to ascribe to them and if there was, it wouldn't begin and end at lowering fees. for another, i think it's silly to talk about what the occupations "tried" to do, versus what they *did* do. you are right, just blocking for its own sake isn't necessarily insurrectionary. however, it is an important part of any insurrectionary strategy. ucsc and berkeley, where some occupations remained open for days at a time, the potential to create new forms of life did begin to be realized. something else you've missed is that the people blocking the universities were the ones being "produced" in it so that represents a shattering of passivity and capitalist subjectivity. in all, more of a rupture than a squat or some other kind of alternative niche-market escapism.

this is what i meant when i said "social war". i think it was obvious that i meant the concept, not the phrase; i'm sorry if it's really that reified for you that you can look at words and only see their relative position on the market of ideas, and not what they're actually being used to mean. and yeah i do think being truly radical means, among other things, realizing that a hierarchal/capitalist society is always at war with itself, which a lot of people are referring to as social or civil war these days. dick.

As noted before, the

As noted before, the original audience of the piece is very liberal. I originally had a section where I talked about dispelling the myth of social peace. I wanted to make a point of pointing out that all actions must be in the context of social conflict (or social war, which sounds way more badass imo). I agree that it is a huge part of the insurrectionary analysis, which is why the piece seems to have a gaping hole in its flow, but for the sake of trying (desperately) to get folks to look beyond "actions" and the social niche of activism, I made a conscious effort to leave out my analysis of social war and it's relation to time and space.

-Johnny Omen (the author, yo)

I often find myself

I often find myself murmuring these proverbial cliches,'If only we could turn back time' ,or ,'There are no more blank areas on the map'.The first is a wistful absurdity.the second a posterior result of the quest for space,both fetishing a non-spontaneity or the organisation of illusive ideals.
Thus I go with the flow of the subjective strike,which I think is what you are saying?

how would you ever know

how would you ever know whether there are no more blank areas on the map or not???? (this goes for maps of all kinds, not just physical geography, but also social/cultural/political/economic grographies as well).

As Rummy would say: There are things that we don't know that we don't know.

Well,I know one map that has

Well,I know one map that has blank areas galore,,the map of your mind,(the graphic displays an horizontal line of course)

Also, grographies? Rummy?

Also, grographies? Rummy? .OMG,an alcoholic rum drinker,figures,duh,don't know what we don't know.YOU are a fuckin moron!!

You're 16, obviously. You

You're 16, obviously. You see, back before Obama became our savior, there was this guy in charge of the Pentagon, named Donald Rumsfeld, affectionately called Rummy by some.

I am not 16 and Obama is not

I am not 16 and Obama is not my savior.Your mental astuteness map is blank,you are therefore incapable of an intersubjective discourse,no wonder you despise activists.

You sarcasm map is blank,

You sarcasm map is blank, too.

I thought you were a

I thought you were a right-wing troll,anyway,sarcasm pompously denies intersubjectivity.So the cartography still stands as before,cerebrally .

on top of what

on top of what likelostchildren said, the revolutionary project will not be and does not need to be so openly apparent to everyone. these occupations are multiples of people actively taking back. it is ridiculous to assume that any sort of revolution will be made up of explicitly radicals or radical actions. do you not see the increase of tension inherent in demanding what capitalists will not give? i.e. repeal the fee hike. radicalization is a process, through these occupations i have seen people who would normally stop at fee hikes move their critique farther. they are to become revolutionary subjects not by reading enough Tiqqun, Bonanno or Landstreicher, but by acting in their own self interest. Workers would never seize a production line simply because some Wobblie handed them Conquest Of Bread, but because it would be in their own self interest.

should the goal be of recruitment? if we get just enough people to be "conscious" will that bring about revolution?

-antiocharrow

maybe we should have a

maybe we should have a strategy of always organizing people to make a demand that won't be realized?

like demanding that hotels allow the homeless to sleep in any room still unoccupied after 10pm or something......

That happens alot already

That happens alot already though, where campaigns demand things that don't get conceded ever, and they remain just another activist campaign. Perhaps it has to be an unrealizable demand, but also has to directly effect you if you are going to be involved in demanding it.

like demanding a 50% day at a corporate clothing retailer, and when they don't concede, some mass proletarian shopping by those in need of clothes can commence.....

50% off day? i believe

50% off day? i believe that's called an after xmas sale. let's not kid ourselves by deciding in advance which demands are or are not possible. in a lot of europe they have legalized squatting which is light years ahead of the u.s. and capitalism hasn't collapsed there yet. when the basic needs of a mass of human beings directly contradict the operation of the capitalist structure, then demands become explosive. when these struggles converge on a global level then we have the potential basis of irreversible anti-capitalist insurrection. unfortunately, this model also contradicts the voluntarism so popular among radicals ('we know what's up, so are we going to change the world!'). not the endless 'wait and see' of some marxists, but an honest analysis of the really existing conditions that are still beyond our grasp - and sharpen our weapons for the day we can grasp them.

Universities don't actively

Universities don't actively produce value -- they actively reproduce class relations by producing labor-power. Surplus-value isn't produced everywhere, and the organs of reproduction, event though they are sites of "exploitation," don't necessarily produce surplus. This holds true for prisons and universities as much as it does for banks.

A university is a relay through which value passes on its way somewhere else, a relay that controls the velocity of value-in-motion by making sure that labor power arrives at the right price at the right place before its date of expiration. . . If you consider universities and transit flows as worthwhile points of conflict, then there is no reason to exclude real-estate. In our frothy, post-industrial climes, real-estate is one the primary mechanisms by which value is both stored and distributed. . . Abandoned houses, not so much. As for the rest of it: total war. Occupy everything.

universities do not produce

universities do not produce labor power; it is an attribute of living humans. so i would say that education produces the elaboration and development of labor powers, for what that's worth. and speaking of real estate, a lot of them are major landowners, not to mention employers, and researchers for corporate and military interests. and what about the money to be made off of training, feeding and housing students? actually i am a bit out of my depth here and not sure how subsidization and federal funding affects their status as "enterprises". so i guess technically you may be right but i feel like you're quibbling a little, the point is that they have an important rule in (re)producing society based on value relations.

All radicals

All radicals attention!!!!!!!!!! OCCUPY your local prisons until all prisoners are released!!!!!!!!!!1
Then the banks until the flow of free surplus is available to ALL!!!!!!!!!

Great article it is what I

Great article it is what I have been saying for years. USHRN is attempting to organize a day of occupation on May-Day this year. Take Back The Land- Occupy Everything.

Here is the FLYER for the

Here is the FLYER for the may day occupation call.

i think USHRN is a perfect

i think USHRN is a perfect example of the dead-end "activist" orgs that this article is deriding!

agreed

agreed

The "movement" in Calgary is

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).

Yeah, sure it is. Let me guess, actually nobody outside the circle of "insurrectionists" notices that they even exist.

This text was meant as an appeal to those activists who are perhaps tired of the alienation and constant disappointment of activism.

Let us know when "insurrectionism" puts an end to alienation and disappointment. Last I heard those things existed in the actual material world that affects everybody, not just "activists."

Perhaps both kinds of

Perhaps both kinds of anarchist approaches can be united in the national Take Back the Land project of the U S Human Rights Network (Atlanta). The plan is to prepare for a multicity expropriation of housing resources as a means of fulfilling immediate needs of the precariously housed and homeless while at the same time educating our class on the contradiction between need and market, use-value and exchange-value. This will be a multi-tiered effort, with opportunites for legal activities as well as clearly differentiated direct action, so as to provide people with means of participation according to their individual levels of commitment. We envision at least one actual building occupation per participant city as propaganda of the deed. Good organizing of the neighborhood to enlist militant, nonviolent defense of the expropriation will be key, realizing that the state will probably succeed in reestablishing property rights over human rights in each particular battle, while losing the legitimacy war. In some individual cases, the expropriation may receive quasilegal sanction, but don't count on it. Target date for surfacing of the project is May 1st, with at least the rest of May being devoted to the reclamation and its fallout (longer if it catches on).
It's not the revolution, but it's a good start.
This project has already gotten some networking through InfoShop. Hopefully libertarian networks will take it up to supplement the work of civil rights, peace and justice types. If workplace occupations coincide with it, so much the better.
Please let me know whether your networks show any interest.

im usually really annoyed

im usually really annoyed with insurrectionist writing. i think all too often insurrectionists spend all this time being 'anti-activist' wanting to smash shit, and ignoring that fact a lot of people are totally dependent on certain state funded programs that insurrectionists 'want to smash'...but this article was great. i say that because it wasn't just some theoretical jargon and pretentious debate, but it had real concrete answers and alternatives to failed attempts at building movements, and to programs that people become dependent on 'inside the system'. well done.

everyone needs to just stop

everyone needs to just stop it with the stereotypes already and just read each other's lit.

my fucking god.

-class struggle insurrectionist anarchist-communist

i'm sure that some people

i'm sure that some people feel that they are dependant on things like the police system, in fact i can think of A LOT of people that would insist that they are dependant on capitalist economy: not just capitalists either, think of how many people feel it is absolutely necessary for them to be able to go purchase groceries at the supermarket instead of taking their lives into their own hands. so, do you think that those are worth saving?

"For instance, producing our

"For instance, producing our own clothes, food, and necessities or having our own daycares, free-schools, and social centres means that we live and work on our own time and become out-of-sync with capitalist relations; we can live outside of civilization while being physically at its heart."

Not everyone can live and work on their own time. You wake up and wish to go to school at midnight and alas, no daycare or school, due to other workers out of sync with your own time. They are out doing things on their own time.

There will always have to be a balance between being a grasshopper or an ant.

great piece on what activism

great piece on what activism actually is:
http://libcom.org/library/your-face-mysteriously-kind-dupont

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.