Tag Archives: organizing

Short-Term Charity VS LongTerm Solidarity In The Context of #Coronavirus. #COVID19

19 Thursday Mar 2020

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

So I’ve been hearing a lot of very enlightened and progressive proposed responses to COVID-19 lately – universal paid sick-leave so people don’t have to go to work sick, expanded social safety nets for people whose livelihoods have been crashed by the pandemic, moratoria on evictions and foreclosures, moratoria on utility shut-offs, making testing and (when it comes) treatment universally accessible, etc. Hell, renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz was on Democracy Now this morning recommending measures such as these, and in doing so sounding suspiciously like a democratic socialist! Although, that observation might well make him queasy. And all these proposals are excellent! Hell, they should be no-brainers that should be implemented immediately and without fuss!

But there’s a red flag, though, and that’s the constant invocation of the emergency – the constant invocation of these measures as special responses to coronavirus . But what happens when the emergency passes? What happens when the crisis is over? Because, the constant invocation of special circumstances implies that such measures of collective support are not needed in “normal” times. It also, therefore, implies that those needs (for health-care, housing, economic assistance, etc,) not directly related to the crisis are not included in these “emergency” measures.

And that, in a nutshell, is one of the key differences between charity and solidarity. Charity, at its best, seeks to provide immediate relief to people in emergency situations. And that is important to be sure! But it is short-term. Indeed, it is deliberately short-term, simply hoping to get people through the immediate crisis and “back on their feet” – back to “normal”. Solidarity, however, looks not only at the immediate emergency, but the underlying structural causes. And it seeks to implement long-term, system-level solutions so that people not only get out of the immediate crisis, but are defended to the greatest extent possible against future crises. It seeks not only to deal with the immediate emergency, but build in resilience to future shocks by making sure that those most vulnerable are as well supported and cared for as possible. Thus, as part of that building of resilience, solidarity seeks to implement measures like those alluded to above on a permanent bases so that they are always in place, rather than their having to be invoked on a crisis by crisis basis and tied to specific emergencies. It seeks to make sure they are truly universally available, both to all people and at all times.

It is incredibly important that this aspect of long-term planning not get lost in the rush for immediate relief. Because, as Naomi Klein points out in her brilliant 2014 book This Changes Everything, good long-term planning is how societies can become resilient and better able to weather not only this crisis but the next one, whether it be another pandemic or a natural disaster, rather than simply reeling from one emergency to another.

At the same time, however, it is crucial to make sure that immediate relief isn’t lost or, worse, subordinated to long-term planning and struggle. And I think, perhaps, this is where Bernie Sanders missed the mark in his most recent debate with Joe Biden. Biden gave listeners a reassuring sense that there would be immediate relief for those affected by the coronavirus pandemic. And that resonated powerfully with freaked out voters, even though he left the questions of the long-term and needs unrelated to the pandemic unaddressed. Whereas, Bernie emphasized long-term plans to address the root causes of vulnerability to the current crisis, but failed to reassure listeners that their immediate emergency needs would be met. Now, I fully believe he intends to attend to those immediate needs! But he did not succeed in conveying that to listeners/voters, giving the (I believe inaccurate) impression that immediate relief was being neglected or, worse, sacrificed to long-term plans for structural change. He did not succeed in conveying how he would address, as the Black Panthers put it, “survival pending revolution”.

I think there’s an important lesson for Progressives to take from this. And that is that a key part of solidarity means addressing “survival pending revolution” – addressing how people’s immediate, urgent, often crisis needs (even without a natural disaster or pandemic) are going to be attended to while we fight for long-term transformation. And it’s not a matter of being able to meet people’s needs perfectly! Because thats’ going to be impossible during struggle and it would be a lie to say otherwise. The important thing, though, is to make sure we convey that those needs are not forgotten amidst our grand ideals and long-term plans. And I do think a lot of it is a matter of communication. Because, Progressives often have thought about those immediate concerns and how to address them! Though, true, not always. But we need to get really good at communicating effectively that we have accounted for those immediate needs. Otherwise, short-term fears for survival are going to continue to trump (pun not intended) long-term desires for change. This is why things like unions, worker cooperatives and mutual aid networks are often such important and powerful organizing vehicles. Because, if we’re going to ask people to let go of those fears and trust their futures to our visions of transformation, they need – and have the right to demand – a safety net! People find courage to fight when they know they’re not alone – when they know that those struggling with them will have their back when the shit hits the fan. And that’s critically important for Progressives to take to heart. Because, unless and until we get the kind of transformation we envision, a lot of shit is going to be hitting a lot of fans for a lot of people!

Last of #WSF2016: #Cities, #Ableism, #Disability and more!

24 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

So I know that, once again, I’ve been away from posting for a really long time! Really sorry about that! It’s been a really busy couple of months with school and, of course, extra-curricular political activities. But I’ve been meaning to get back here for ages! It’s just taken me a while to have the time and the spoons.

Anyway, before going on to all the current stuff, I wanted to finish my “coverage” of the World Social Forum from back in August. Because, I definitely didn’t cover everything before! Warning, though, that might make this post a bit long. Sorry about that, but there’s a lot to pack in!

So we did actually make the workshop on Friday morning that we wanted to, which was the one from earlier in the week that got rescheduled on “The Fight for the Global City”. And boy was it awesome! There were three panelists – two from Latin America, and one from India. And they talked about various struggles for social justice in their cities, but also about various initiatives to make their cities more just and sustainable. Unfortunately, it’s been such a long time since the workshop that I can’t remember the details. But I’ll look them up as soon as I can, and post links if possible!

The most interesting idea to come from that workshop, though, and the one that’s really stayed with me as something to think about, is the idea of struggling against and resisting what they called “urban extractivism”. They suggested that, under the current neoliberal capitalist economic system, cities are looked at, not as places where people live and have community, but as resource-deposits from which profit can be extracted. So, for example they talked about real-estate markets as a form of extractivism in which land and housing are viewed as resources to be “mined” (not the exact wording, but a similar analogy). Similarly, they talked about how, in this paradigm, urban populations are looked at as a resource to be extracted – as labour, as advertising recipients, as statistical data, as heads to be paid by the number of (as in hospitals and prisons where funding as allocated according to number of patients/inmates, so more bodies = more money). It was a really interesting way to think about those processes! We tend to think of extractivism as something that happens “out there” – in mines and oil and gas extraction sites, but not as something that happens in cities. If anything, we tend to think of cities as the beneficiaries of extractivism. So I thought it was really interesting how these speakers showed how it’s not that simple! And, of course, they noted that this urban extractivism is applied differently to different urban populations, falling hardest on the urban poor.

Then, in the evening (LOL if there was an afternoon workshop I don’t remember what it was), we went to the last of what they called the “Grand Conferences”, which were basically panels of speakers on various issues that had been focussed on throughout the forum. We’d already heard one on neoliberalism and health, which was interesting if depressing, and one on LGBTQ+ struggles around the world which was really cool!

The Friday night’s, though, was on ableism. And it was fantastic! The first chap who spoke did an absolutely brilliant run-down of what ableism is, and of the difference between ableism as individual prejudice and what might be called structural ableism. I really hope his talk was YouTubed, as it’d make a great “ableism 101”! I’ll try to find it and post a link. In fact, I’ll try to do that with as many of the talks as I can, as they were all fantastic!

Then, my friend Laurence, who’s a colleague from way back when I was doing my MA, gave a really great talk on Disabled struggles in the Francophone world. She spoke about the struggle to find a way to define the issue in French without simply borrowing either the English terminology or that coming out of the academy in France, as it may not translate well since different words, with slightly different connotations, are used in different French-speaking regions. For example, she talked about how slightly different terminology is used in France vs in Quebec. And the point is, as has been done so effectively in English with the word “ableism”, to find a term that takes the presumed natural superiority of the able-body and turns it on its head to show how it actually supports a hierarchy. So it was a really interesting talk!

Then the final panelist signed about the emergence of Deaf culture and Deaf arts, and her own emergence as a Deaf poet. Again, really interesting! And I was really thrilled to hear the issue of ableism given such a prominent spot in the WSF. Because, as the title of the panel pointed out, it’s the one system of prejudice that’s all too often forgotten, even among those who are trying to organize for justice and change! So it was good, and refreshing, to have that recognized and an attempt made to do differently. Granted, the attempt could have been more successful. Sure! But, A, at least it was there, and B, that just means there’s more to work on. And the logistical challenges – of making an event like that accessible with all volunteers, a minimal budget, and an organizational structure that tries to be as horizontal as possible – are formidable! So I certainly didn’t get the sense that the access failures that there were, and there were, came from lack of trying. And they certainly seem to be open to learning how they can do stuff better in the future!

Anyway, the next day was the closing events – a sort of wrap-up conference to summarize and assemble everything that had been decided through the week in terms of actions going forward, and then a big closing concert. Mom and I didn’t go to that stuff, though, because, by then, we were both pretty exhausted! LOL We did try to go to the concert, but got seriously rained out! It was a great week, though. I’m really glad we went, and so’s Mom (LOL kind of in spite of herself)! And I very much hope I’ll have the chance to go to another WSF in the future now that I have a better sense of how the whole thing works. I think I’d get much more out of it next time, and be much better able to contribute! We’ll have to see, though. But I hope that might be possible, as, for all that it was incredibly exhausting, I had a really awesome time!

#WSF2016 Workshop: Building #Cosmopolitan #Solidarities for effective #Allyship

22 Monday Aug 2016

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

So the next workshop we went to at the World Social Forum was on Thursday afternoon (Aug. 12). LOL Again, we meant to go to one in the morning too, but sleep intervened! But we made the afternoon workshop we wanted to get to, and, again, were really glad we did. It was another great one! Though, at first, I wasn’t sure it would be. But it turned out very effective and productive!

So the workshop was on building what it called “cosmopolitan solidarities”. And the way they were using this language was to mean building solidarities between groups who do not necessarily share the same agenda, goals, or even underlying beliefs/political orientations. We seemed to focus on building solidarity and, ultimately, allyship among diverse groups and people. And it’s an extremely important topic! Because, if you want a broad-based movement, you need to build that kind of solidarity. And it hasn’t always been easy!

What was great, though, was that many folks in the workshop had a lot of on-the-ground, hands-on experience with doing that kind of organizing, so they were able to share a lot of wisdom. One guy in particular had some fantastic stories from the collective he had been part of! And another woman had a lot of insight from her days as part of the collective running a Feminist paper. And the woman who facilitated the workshop had a lot of experience, too, organizing with refugees and around the refugee crisis in Germany where she’s from, and where she’s, in fact, doing her doctorate on this very issue. So it was really great!

In the end, what we arrived at was not a set of best practices, because the one thing that really came through loud and clear was that there is no “one size fits all”, but rather a set of best attitudes or best mindsets. And I hope I can remember all the “ingredients” we came up with! Because, we ended up thinking of it as kind of like a soup – a recipe that could be blended differently depending on the needs of the situation. But we decided that the basic ingredients were: respect, flexibility, real listening, humility – being willing to admit that you don’t have all the answers, awareness of and responsiveness to the needs of the situation and the particular people in the group, reliability, but also awareness that people have to contribute according to their abilities, a sense of humour and an ability to have fun, creativity, and an ability and willingness to adapt. If anyone else who was there reads this, have I missed anything?

Anyway, although the above definitely isn’t news or anything Earth-shattering, it was still a really great, productive workshop. It was really fantastic to hear about everyone’s experiences in actual organizing so that it wasn’t just a theoretical discussion! And I really liked the list of best approaches we came up with. I thought it really useful as something to think with going forward into future work!