Lucy Parsons: The General Strike: The Strike of the Future (1905)

William Trautmann: The General Strike (1912)

The General Strike that didn’t happen: a report on the activity of the IWW in Wisconsin

Tim Acott: Think it Over (2011)

Obviously I am a fan of Recomposition Blog. The people who write for this site are all on-the-ground workplace organziers with the IWW, most (all?) of them have many years of experience organizing radical, direct-action, democratic unions.

I’m also going to say that if you are serious about organizing any kind of job action, you would do well to gt in touch with the IWW Branch nearest you. In most places the IWW is one of, if not the only, organization doing this kind of organizing. The IWW runs “Workplace Organizing 101″ trainings which are said to best the best in NA. Also it is one of the only unions which does not immediately seek certification votes upon organizing.

That’s a whole separate topic, but the short of it is this: in most jurisdictions certified unions, union leaders and/or workers can be fined (BIG money) or jailed for participating in (or even advocating) any job action which does not follow some very specific rules. And I guarantee you the General Strike is outside those rules (look up your local laws re “double picketing”). This is why at the end of the day the leadership of trade unions will be very reluctant to endorse or assist in any way. I read a couple of articles recently that discussed this point:

No strike clauses hold back unions

West Coast Port Shutdown Sparks Heated Debate between Unions, Occupy

So if you want to organize anything like this, you have to go to the base. Which is difficult, I’m not going to lie. But realistically it’s the only choice we have.

Anyway if anyone else has any good resources to add I’m sure they would be welcome. There seems to be a tremendous amount of interest in this. Which is wonderful, frankly.

Here are the posts I have on the site, organized by subject.  They have been written over the span of a few years.  I don’t update this blog too often as I am not a prolific writer.

Anarchism

• My relationship to struggle right now – Although I am deeply committed to this project—the project of creating a world which is reasonable to live in—I have lately found myself more often a cynical observer than an active member.
• Why anarchists need to pay attention to management literature – How the Left can learn from the substantial knowledge and evidence amassed by the capitalist classes in their drive to make profit.  Their own literature, when viewed through the eyes of the anti-authoritarian Left, can clearly be seen to support our economic ideas.
• Revolutionary Stripes – Here is a picture I drew a while back as an illustration of how movement building works.  Is it too simple? Definitely.  Is it a useful teaching and thinking tool? I think perhaps so.
• Tactics and strategy – Here is  the text of a couple of little essays I wrote in the comments when someone posted a link to some anarchist fighting. Debating tactics outside of the context of goals and strategy is useless. I think the real debate being had is of those latter points.
• Stating the obvious – A little rant about anarchism.
• Rules for Radicals – A book review.
• Underpants anarchism – But what does South Park have to teach us?

Gender

• My crazy gender and women-only spaces – As a person born female-bodied but with a complicated gender identity
  which leans strongly towards male, I have had many thoughts on the issue of women-only spaces.
• I fight like a girl – A poem of unknown origin.

Trans isn’t radical

A series of posts taken from an essay I wrote after immersing myself in reading the trans cannon. So much of it seemed overly self-congratulatory because the authors felt like trans and genderqueer were “radical” and “revolutionary”. Having a deep respect for both these words and their history I found this hard to stomach and here is some of the reasons why.

While I have tried to make these stand on their own, they were written as one giant essay, some of which isn’t posted yet.  So if something doesn’t make sense that might be why.

• Gender challenge – The thesis I am disputing here is: Trans challenges assumptions from the culture at large regarding the foundations of gender, which is a central component of the network of oppression.
• Administrative reforms – About the paperwork side of trans.
• Medical magic – Reforms we demand of the medical system do little to prefigure or create any sort of new health care model. In this post I compare the trans health care movement with the feminist health movement, and suggest ways trans folk may be able to build on their successes.

Humour & Jokes

• Attentat! Newsheet – A joke newsletter I wrote about Ottawa Anarchists.
• Which lane are you in? – A song I wrote riding my bike in the city…
• Parody of “Baby, I’m an anarchist” – In which I defile the expression of lifestylist smugness
• Scared of government – A few TPFD comics I stole.
• Design for Anarchists – (Or, How to stay in the anarchist ghetto) I have been meaning for years to write something for anarchists about the basics of design. But I felt that there are already such copious materials out there that if anyone cared to look there’s no reason why anything I wrote would be too special. I figure the problem is more with people not caring. So knowing that anarchists don’t tend to like to do as they’re told I am employing a bit of reverse psychology… oops I gave away the trick before the show.

Labour

• The Ontario Labour Relations Act and it’s effect on union activity – A graph that tells a story.

Other

• What does “privilege” mean? – An unfinished list of what privilege looks like, in general.
• Making spaces accessible – Some research I did about how to construct accessible spaces.

The concept that trans is in and of itself radical is one I have seen represented repeatedly in discussions. As I understand the logic, it is that since gender is involved in many oppressions in the world, the details of which are often scrupulously enforced, challenging these details, or questioning gender in and of itself, is inherently radical.

Advocating this concept would seem to rely on a sort of willful blindness to the multitudinousness manifestations of gender worldwide and historically. In fact, as Feinberg documents and speculates about in Transgender Warriors, trans has been accepted as part of the fabric of many cultures, even while they easily maintained other undesirable qualities. Sie documents various sorts of gender-variance, from cross-dressing to third genders from around the world and through time, with the thesis that trans has only quite recently been so thoroughly erased and degraded.¹

Bornstein, perhaps aware of this, explains this by saying it’s not just reformist acceptance and respect for trans folk that is radical, it is the dismantling of gender altogether which will really cause a stir.

Well, it’s a patriarchal culture, and gender seems to be basic to the patriarchy. After all, men couldn’t have male privilege if there was no such thing as ‘women.’ Doing away with with gender is the key to doing away with the patriarchy, as well as ending the many injustices perpetrated in the name of gender inequity.²

I contest the idea that simply ending gender is “the key” to ending patriarchy. It sort of reminds me of the idea that the best way to end racism to for people to breed with each other until everyone is the same colour. Both ideas seem to come from a deep lack of understanding of the nature and enforcement of systematized oppression. They are so vague as to the details of their implementation, and unlikely to occur that they seem almost to write off any potential at smashing patriarchy or ending white supremacism.

She later elaborates, “the current gender system relies heavily on everyone’s agreement that it’s inflexible.”³ However, it seems to me that just in the past 60 years, gender has proven itself to be quite flexible indeed. Systems of control do not persist for thousands of years without a considerable amount of plasticity. In fact the diversity of gender expression worldwide can easily be seen as proof of a system which is immensely malleable in both its desirable and undesirable qualities.

While she concedes that feminism and such is a “vital stopgap measure” it seems so flippant to me to make a statement which amounts to a complete dismissal for the entire feminist movement and its potential.⁴

Patrick Califia says of Bornstein,

I would argue that we cannot realistically expect to end sex- or gender-based discrimination or stigma by simply eliminating identities that are the loci of abusive power or disenfranchisement. Indeed, eliminating such identities would be a form of oppression. I cannot imagine Bornstein seriously suggesting, for example, that we eliminate racial or ethnic categories as a way to combat racism. Human xenophobia — our fear of difference — cannot be placated so easily. We need to learn to celebrate our differences, not “morally mandate them out of existence.”⁵ [Sex Changes]

Feinberg attributes the following, somewhat more insightful words to Nancy Nangeroni:

It is not gender which causes problems; rather, it is the imposition of a gender on an individual by another. When the imposition is removed, polarity of masculine and feminine may remain, but as personal preference rather than imposed imperative. Penises, breasts, and vaginas will once again become body parts rather than regulators of behavior and identity. ⁶

While I do not think that the assigning of gender non-consensually is the only problem with it, I agree with the sentiment that gender has the potential to be life-affirming and delightful.

In my personal journey with trans I have found myself with a much deeper respect for gender diversity than when I started out. I used to be so unhappy with being assumed girl and then woman that I thought the problem was the role itself. I could not have given you a very good explanation for the existence of thoughtful and voluntary forms of femininity, as expressed by trans women and femme lesbians, for example. The idea of choosing to be female (sometimes very feminine) was confusing to me and I assumed that people who acted like that simply had a tonne of internalized patriarchy going on. It was not until I started really investigating my own gender, and listening to the stories of folks who had done the same before me, that I began to appreciate those kinds of gendered expressions. Now that the prospect of no longer passing as female looms in front of me, I am finding myself much less resentful of those women who do desire to be seen that way.

Overstating the social importance of one’s own personal life is not at all unique to the trans community. I am aware of an identical habit among polyamorists, kinksters, queers, hackers, punks and hippies and I am certain is exists in a thousand other subcultures. I think it is worth examining the reasons for this compulsion. I would guess at two possible causes, depending on the individual.

First I think that sometimes people who are otherwise involved in leftist political struggle like to justify everything they do as being at least partially politically motivated, perhaps because they feel decadent taking so much time and energy for themselves otherwise.

An other example of this would be riding a bike. I have heard it expressed that someone rides a bike as a statement against car culture. This is a very ineffective statement as another cyclist on the road does little to affect anyone. Particularly, as is usually the case, that individual never owned a motor vehicle in the first place and was a pedestrian or a more frequent user of public transportation prior to becoming a cyclist. Even in the case of someone who switches their primary mode of transit away from motors to pedals, very little is accomplished politically. However, if that same person become an organizer or an activist in some project which advances the cause of cyclists, then they are making an impact.

I ride a bike because it is fun, cheap and easy. I am trans because complex factors in my life have pushed me in this direction and it is the best way for me to live. I can choose to organize and agitate around either or those, or neither. My ability to participate in traffic as a cyclist, and in life as a trans person, is also affect by the work of many other activists before me, regardless of my decisions.

As well as causing grief for administrators, we can also be trouble for the medical system. Those people who handle our bodies and psyches with the intimacy of lovers, but the distance of the corner-store clerk. We demand treatments for diseases many of us do not believe exist, manipulating diagnosis to get what we want or need.

Reforms we demand of the medical system do little to prefigure or create any sort of new health care model. Many of the broad issues raised by trans folks about the medical system were issues previously raised by feminists, I would say to much more effect. The overarching issue of paternalism, for example, has been more than adequately covered by feminists over the past 40 years—actually the popular and women’s health movements extend back into the nineteenth century if you want to be really accurate. This is not to say that trans experiences do not add more depths and detail to the existing critiques, because I think they do.

I’ll admit freely that my feminist background has provided me with high expectations of any other group which claims or desires to criticize the health system. I contrast in particular to the feminist health movement (FHM), an important part of the Second Wave, one which for reasons that are not too clear to me, seems to have almost completely dissolved by the time I was old enough to notice. Nevertheless, it is worth examining as a model of a radical health movement.

The one remnant of this movement that most of of us have at least heard of is Our Bodies, Our Selves (OBOS), which was originally published in 1973 by the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective.¹ The title says it all: the book was conceived of in order to bring a sense of power and entitlement to women when it came to controlling their bodies. The Collective that put this book together were not the only ones, in fact it is a (somewhat) surviving artifact of something which was so powerful I am baffled as to how it’s not more well known among even today’s young feminists.

The most recent edition, the one you can buy from the grocery store, is a bit of a travesty when compared to previous editions. Frankly it surprises me that they can use the same name. Last time I picked it up, “feminism” was only mentioned once in the index. My edition is a bright red tome, “updated and expanded for the ‘90s” and sports a picture of the back cover of a banner reading “FEMINISM LIVES.” Contrast this to the white and pastels of the newer edition, which has been stripped of the righteous rage that made the older ones so wonderful. I don’t consult my outdated OBOS when I want to find out medical information (I have the Internet and more recent texts for that) but when I want to find out a feminist angle on a specific health care issue. (It is notable that trans and gender identity are absent from the index entirely.)

The FHM traces it’s origins to the consciousness-raising movement, another subsection of feminism which I will touch upon. The FHM began in a context where women’s realities were pathologized and then treated by a medical establishment run by the other gender, as articulated in the title of Ehrenreich & English’s book on the subject, For Her Own Good.² Does that sound familiar to you? Feminists and their allies worked to bring the concerns of women, in all their manifestations, to the center of their care. Many envisioned a radically different model of care, one which is based on the individual knowing as much as possible, doing as much as possible for herself, as well as a return to lay practitioners in the community to deal with easy ailments and preventative medicine. For example, the clinic described in A New View of a Woman’s Body, “we spent the first half of the evening doing self-examination [of genitals, cervix and uterus] on a desk in an alcove. Then we sat in a circle on the floor and talked for the last half of the evening, discussing our health care and experiences with the medical profession.”

These “clinic” groups spawned actual brick-and-mortar institutions where women could go to learn how to know their own bodies. It also created a base of lay people who were more informed about their bodies and the social conditions which affected them than most of the practitioners who were trying to tell them what to do. They were knowledgeable and they were organized, successfully advocating for a feminist-inspired approach to care in many areas. The effects on the broader health care culture were immense, if not everything that was desired.

“Pro choice” was ideological short hand not just for access to abortion and contraception, but also in ways of giving birth. Feminists advocated with some success for the legalization and even public funding of midwifery. Hospital births have undergone intense changes since the 60s, when a mother was often knocked out so that she hardly remembered the experience and the doctor was said to “deliver” the baby. Self care such as manual breast exams took root even though cervix gazing eventually fell out of favour.

I evaluate the radical nature of the FHM not just in terms of it’s effects as we see them retrospectively, but also on the vision it did not manage to achieve. Public health care which funded so-called “alternative” and “complementary” therapies as well as mainstream medicine, extensive reproductive health care and an emphasis on in depth patient education are unrealized goals of the FHM.

I tell this story not to inform about the FHM, although I think it is immensely interesting, but to show an example of an attempt to radically shift the way care is provided and demanded.

In contrast, the trans community debates within itself whether we should be included in the DSM V, the minutia of certain procedures and we talk about the need for more resources and education. I think that trans has a lot more to demand of the system (which has the side effect of making things better for everyone else, too). Again I am not disputing the usefulness of these debates and campaigns. I am just saying that they are essentially reformist and there’s no need to be pretending otherwise.

What are the issues we have with standard health care and how can we address them? And what would trans-positive specialist gender care look like? I believe the best way to engage in action is to visualize, collectively if possible, what we want it to look and feel like to get health care. Then, we can focus our energies most powerfully.

Trans health care seems to be heavily invested in the medical model. In classic form, there is a lot of pathologizing followed by administration of chemicals, and adding and removing of body parts. My aversion to this model of care earlier in my life put me off investigating medical transition for a good long time. While I am now more comfortable around this form of medicine, I am skeptical that in its current form it represents anything near the best possible method of care.

The medical model of health is characterized by an apparent urge to view everything on the micro level. This kind of health care was developed in tandem with technological and scientific advances that made it possible to dissect matter and life with a granularity hardly dreamed of previously. Cells, germs, DNA, hormones, nutrients, radiation and many other concepts were theorized about and then proved. The medical model is one that awaits an acute crisis state, which it treats for the most part with the addition or subtraction of chemicals or body parts. While healing disciplines other than medicine are making steady advancements in affecting care, they are still all subject to this particular view of the world. We are beginning to see the shortcomings of relying so heavily on micro-level care, with issues such as diabetes and obesity, which are often mentioned, but also fibromyalgia, asthma and other allergies, addiction, abuse and assault and many other health conditions.

What I am trying to get at here is that I would like to see trans look beyond the medical model. I am interested in what we have to contribute to public health. While surgeries and hormones will probably always be an important part of trans health care, what other ways can we work with thehealth system to remodel the way care is given to everyone?

Trans people bother administrators the world over. Everywhere we are insisting on changing documents that were not meant to be changed. The solid and real part of the documents, that are tied to biology and history, things that cannot be changed, really. I imagine we may as well be arguing to change the place of our birth on our records, as well as changing our M or F, so far as the system is concerned.

So everywhere, we lobby. I do not see that we have yet a united front on what we are arguing for, with some wanting to change the M or F after surgery (which surgeries count?), or maybe after hormone treatments. Still others want to get rid of that particular piece of trivia altogether, an approach which I favour personally.

I do not think trans is radical in either of these domains, though.

On the administrative side, while there are occasional trans people who express views which I would say are radical, our demands of paperwork do not seem to address much “fundamental” in the world. Identification, paper trail histories, files and all that jazz all assume so much about the world. The troublesome birth certificate, for instance, requires a government to issue it. Passports become important historically only when these governments [[become coordinated enough]] to define and maintain borders between their jurisdictions which privilage some people over others in terms of humanity, both of which (the interior area and the line around it) are enforced, in the end, with military control.

Trans in and of itself does not challenge any of this. We do not, as a group, have much to say about the existence of identifying papers and their implications for us economically, socially and politically. We are troubled by the implementation. Because trans folk represent a random sampling of all people, and because the idea of getting rid of nation states and all the [[frills]] that surround them are not ideas which have well-saturated our varied communities, I would not expect to see the broad trans community embrace such legitimately radical ideas, or others.

The Solidarity ID (SID) project out of Concordia University is of interest I think, because it is an attempt to circumvent government-issued ID cards for “transsexual, transgendered and gender-non-conforming individuals as well as migrant, indigenous and non-status people.”¹ SID creates cards which are primarily voluntary identification information. I think this is an interesting initiative and indicates a thorough understanding of trans people’s situation in the world in relation to others. They are fighting paperwork for their right to work and live, as are other groups.. Although realistically unlikely to “change the way personal ID cards function in Canada” as stated by Sarah Needles, I think the concept of challenging who has the right to create valid and legitimate ID cards does have radical possibilities. However, until this sort of analysis is cultivated by all trans people we will remain a reformist force in society.

At the end of the day, it is likely our demands to get rid of or alter certain boxes on certain pieces of paper will have as much impact as gay marriage: a number of people will have easier lives, a few others will be outraged, and everything generally goes on as it was.

Although I am deeply committed to this project—the project of creating a world which is reasonable to live in—I have lately found myself more often a cynical observer than an active member. This fact hurts me deeply and surely annoys those around me.  The fact is that I am having a harder time associating myself with this thing we call the Left, a movement which lacks any imminent potential of growth. It seems to be founded on the brutally opposing combination of crazily high expectations on the one hand and a disregard for the potential and strength which we actually possess on the other.

For years I had a really hard time understanding how a person could sit by and not be involved in struggle.  I was always a sensitive kid, bothered by injustice and shoddy design. I would often wonder: how do people keep their mouths shut and their heads down, not to mention their hearts hard? And now that I am becoming that person, I find this life as ungratifying, angsty and empty as I always imagined it. Making my apartment nice, working on my relationships, cooking good food and getting better at my job are all fun and worthwhile.  But how can they compare with joy of moving the rocks that crush us?

I have found myself embarrassed to introduce myself to strangers lately, because the parts of myself that I was especially proud of—my political muscles—have become atrophied and soft through disuse. I have loved myself the most when I was tired from the weight of rocks piled on my back, but nowhere near me do I see the movement that has much hope of moving anything. And I have a really hard time with busy work, ask any of my school teachers.

It doesn’t seem too complicated to me to start working effectively.  Of course, the devil’s in the details, innit? Broadly, what needs to be done is plain to see.  I can’t do it by myself, this is really a group effort thing. )

Getting over “no leaders”

Oh, I have set off alarm bells in the heads of anarchists already.  Aren’t we against leadership? I’m only going to spend one paragraph on this subject, and if you aren’t convinced by the end of it then I won’t be surprised if you don’t like the rest of this piece, either. (Unless you already agreed with this point.  In which case, please carry on.)

It is my belief that the concept known as “leadership” is an appropriation of a natural human urge to respect people who are good at what they do.  It is a very rational thing for us to do in some ways, in some contexts, but like all other aspects of the human experience (dancing, having sex, building families) can be used for the advancement or detriment of an individual or group. Leadership is really useful to me as a healthcare worker.  I am completely comfortable with listening to people who have been doing my job for years, who have extra experience and training that I lack, and I enjoy their guidance in sticky situations.  I don’t want o be on a completely level playing field with everyone I work with.  Some people deserve a larger voice.  However this comes to be problematic when this kind of relationship is based not on respect but on title.  I have also come across people with years of experience and training who apparently have shit for brains.  I don’t know how they have kept their jobs so long!  I do not accept their leadership at all.

In summary: leadership can be build in a way which is positive and liberatory and affirming for all involved. For a more indepth exploration of this concept please consult the book Truth or Dare.

What managers can teach us

OK now that is over with.  So you are in the bookstore.  Let’s use Amazon since this is the interweb.  I did a search for management leadership and here are three results from the first page of hits, along with their thesis statements are derived from the reviews. (I have not read any of these books.)

Strength-based Leadership

The most effective leaders are always investing in strengths.

The most effective leaders surround themselves with the right people and then maximize their team.

The most effective leaders understand their followers’ needs.

Leadership Skills for Managers

Exhibit the poise and presence required to “get others to march”

Step outside the status quo–to visualize and implement true improvements

Cultivate valuable professional bonds via benchmarking and community networks

The Five Dysfunctions of  a Team: A Leadership Fable

The story is about a female CEO who is hired to bring together a dysfunctional executive staff to work as a team in a company that just two years earlier had looked promising. The scenarios that follow are recognizable and can be applied anywhere teamwork is involved, whether it is a multinational company, a small department within a larger organization, or a sports team. The five dysfunctions discussed are absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results.

You are probably thinking what I do whenever I leaf through management books—no manager I ever had must’ve read these!

The really interesting thing about these books is that they are often based on sound evidence, but have common theme of the author saying, “if everyone would just do this, things would be so much better!” Which is true! The central problem to all these books is that the authors always take capitalist and corporatist economics for granted.  So when you read them, you can just know that and account for it.

It’s kind of sad actually, all these really smart people with an incredible knack for interpersonal dynamics, an understanding of power structures and an evident desire to see others prosper trying so hard to convince business people to run things differently.  They don’t seem to get that the system will always encourage a certain kind of organizational behaviour.  It’s the nature of the beast.

Capitalist literature promotes syndicalist ideals

I was thinking of this again cause I was listening to an interview Nora Young of CBC Spark did with Daniel Pink who wrote a book called Drive which uses scientific evidence (in as much as you consider sociology a science ) to argue the following three things are what makes people do things well and properly:

Autonomy - the desire to direct our own lives

Mastery - the urge to get better and better at something that matters

Purpose - the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves

Doesn’t that sound like the background principals behind various kinds of democratic anarchist economics to you? It is missing our emphasis on decentralization of authority, and our vigorous anti-oppression politics. (Although I do have to say I have seen big sections in not a few of these books devoted to recognizing different sorts of privilege in interpersonal relationships, and how to minimize and cope with these in a group while recognizing historical power imbalances—really! It makes business sense.)

But you know when you are talking to someone about how else the economy might work “after the revolution” and they say something about “human nature” and how it’ll never work without a competitive and individualistic economic system?  There are hundreds of books being written for entirely the wrong audience which seek to disprove this notion and offer ways of running things which emphasize worker control and autonomy.

Also on this theme, I recently listened to a This American Life podcast episode about NUMMI, a joint Toyota/GM car factory where GM learned about how giving workers significant amounts of job control increased productivity like mad.

What we can learn

Of course these publications are also interesting because they give us lots of insight into the running of our own organizations.  Honestly, all you have to do is ignore the parts about profit.  There are a shit tonne of books being written today about how to run non-hierarchical, grassroots organizations.  Too bad they will never have significant impact in their desired market.  But I think as anarchists we can use them as tools to prove our theoretical points and to help us develop practical strategies for working better.

According to the filename (where I always put dates cause I'm nerdy that way) this is from march 20, 2008. I guess Spring puts me in the mood for theory of action. Click on the image to see it full-sized.

In the two years since I created this my ideas have been updated a bit.  I might make a version 2 of this sometime.