Saturday, 19 February 2022

'Freedom' Convoys: No Red/Black Alliance!

[big snip]

Wrong Ideas of “Freedom”

It is true that the Canadian protesters are not uniformly white nor all committed to a Trumpian white nationalism; there are participants who have seen an opportunity, albeit catalyzed by a pathetic anti-mandate movement, to protest Trudeau’s government and its neoliberal policies.

One could squint and see the potential for anti-authoritarian affinities to be found. Squint that hard, though, and you might find your eyes are closed. We cannot ignore the white supremacist notion of autonomy that undergirds the movement, which is not an incidental aspect that could be exorcised to reveal a working-class movement based on solidarity.

Needless to say, there’s nothing salutary in the individualist rejection of masks and vaccines. The historian Taylor Dysart in the Washington Post rightly characterized these truckers’ notion of “freedom” — the ability to move freely and potentially spread disease across the occupied Indigenous lands of the U.S. and Canada — as the “freedom” of settler colonialists.

The settler colonialism was evident in the occupiers’ offensive misuse of Indigenous ceremony — which Indigenous groups have condemned — and the way the convoy protesters ignore Native communities’ calls for the end of this occupation on already occupied land.

The “Freedom Convoy” is also not a challenge to the U.S. and Canada’s violent border regimes, even though it began in protest of the border policy mandating that truck drivers be vaccinated to cross between the U.S. and Canada. A number of the movement’s leaders have openly expressed racist, anti-immigrant sentiments and been involved in far-right organizing.

The anti-mandate protesters are not in the struggle for the freedom of anyone’s movement but their own.

Yellow Vests Example

A useful comparison might be drawn with the Yellow Vest movement, which exploded onto the streets of France in late 2018. The protests were initially in response to the ur-neoliberal French President Emmanuel Macron’s increase on fuel taxes — a putatively ecological measure that in fact put an extraordinary financial burden on the working class while refusing to challenge major corporations. The protests erupted into a generalized uprising against the French status quo of austerity and economic injustice.

Under the Yellow Vest umbrella, fascist elements were also pushing for harsh immigration policies, while antifascist leftists were taking to the streets against the police and capitalist institutions. The movement contained deep internal conflicts, and left-wing participants were faced with the question of whether it was worth trying to fight the racist and fascist elements of the uprisings from within the movement. Many, though, deemed the alternative — to allow far-right forces to direct and control the revolutionary moment — unacceptable.

Could the same logic also speak to the anti-state protests in Canada and beyond today? Should the left refuse to cede the ground of anti-state dissent and circulation struggles to the right-wing conspiracy theorists?

The difference between the current blockades and the Yellow Vests is that the “Freedom Convoys” are not only incidentally rich in far-right elements; the notion of autonomy driving the movement is essentially a white supremacist, individualist one. Notably, too, American right-wing support of the blockades is only anti-state insofar as the state is not a Trumpian one. And it’s worth recalling that when Canada saw its own Yellow Vest movement emerge in response to France’s, it was explicitly right-wing and anti-immigrant in character; the current blockades are within this legacy.

If there is a Yellow Vests-related legacy to carry forward toward more liberatory aims than those of the Ottawa occupations, we might instead recall the Black Vests, or “Gilets Noirs” in French. This huge collective of undocumented immigrants in France carried out major protest actions in 2019, including occupying a terminal in Paris’s Charles De Gaulle Airport in direct resistance to Air France’s role as “the official deporter of the French state.” The movement understood, too, the importance of striking at major points of circulation: sites of the free flow of capital and brutal limits on the movement of peoples.

Like the Black Vests’ answer to the Yellow Vests, any worthwhile response to the “Freedom Convoy” occupations and blockades must take effect on wholly anti-racist, antifascist, and anti-capitalist terms. On this side of the Atlantic, the way has already been paved — and not by anti-mandate protesters. Indigenous land and water defenders from Standing Rock to the Wet’suwet’en territories have shown us what it looks like to take up the struggle against capitalist circulation in the service of collective, rather than individual, freedom.

@TI.

H/T Harry Feldman.

22 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. This is how we fight "authoritarians".... ;)

      Delete
    2. ps- Not everyone talks in "code" to conceal their "true motives". Most times, they're just p*ssed off. I think Zizek calls it "Divine violence". ;p

      Delete
    3. So what is divine violence? Its place can be defined in a very pre cise formal way. Badiou already elaborated the constitutive excess of representation over the represented: at the level of the Law, the state Power only represents the interests, etc. of its subjects; it is serving them, responsible to them, and itself subjected to their control; how ever, at the level of the superego underside, the public message of responsibility etc., is supplemented by the obscene message of un conditional exercise of Power: laws do not really bind me, I can do to you WHATEVER I WANT, I can treat you as guilty if I decide to do so, I can destroy you if I say so ... This obscene excess is a necessary constituent of the notion of sovereignty—the asymmetry is here structural, i.e., the law can only sustain its authority if subjects hear in it an echo of the obscene unconditional self-assertion. And the people's "divine violence" is correlative to this excess of power: it is its counterpart—it targets this excess and undermines it.

      Delete
    4. Jordan Petersen nails it. There's no way that the protestors are calling for "more authoritarian measures from the Canadian government. They're there to do as Zizek says, "undermine it". They have no clue as to any "ulterior motives" for gathering.

      Delete
  2. Invoking Petersen really puts me off my pudding and your argument!

    I love it how you guys loudly condemn BLM when they break a copper's nail but see no problem when your 'freedom' seekers forcefully lay siege to an entire country!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a slight difference. BLM wants to defund/ deconstruct authoritarian structures. The Right merely wants them to remain "idle".

      Delete
    2. Is it because those structures establish and maintain all social privileges? Probably. Those structures haven't always served "under-represented" minorities very well. But that's changed a lot in recent decades.

      Delete
    3. Again, you may dislike JP, but he nailed it with this argument.

      Delete
    4. Suppose you managed at keeping 'authoritarian structures "idle"' how long do you think that state of affairs could be maintained? LOL

      Delete
    5. Going on 250 years now. The problem is that we often fail to elect truly representative men.

      Delete
    6. "Ever their phantoms arise before us,
      Our loftier brothers, but one in blood;
      At bed and table they lord it o'er us
      With looks of beauty and words of good."


      -RW Emerson

      Delete
    7. How long can it last? I think we're approaching Stage 4...

      Phases of the Image:
      1. It Reflects Reality
      2. It Masks Reality
      3. It Masks the Absence of Reality
      4. It has no Relation to Reality Whatsoever

      Delete
    8. Of course, there was that one time from 1861-65 that things got a little crazy...

      Delete
  3. The problem is that we often fail to elect truly representative men.

    What, Louie Gohmert and Peter King aren't truly representative?

    I've been lied to for decades...

    ReplyDelete
  4. touche. They are hardly worthy of the Platonic term "Statesmen".

    rom Wiki re Plato's The Statesman

    According to John M. Cooper, the dialogue was intended to clarify that to rule or have political power called for a specialized knowledge.[4] The statesman was one who possesses this special knowledge of how to rule justly and well and to have the best interests of the citizens at heart. It is presented that politics should be run by this knowledge, or gnosis. This claim runs counter to those who, the Stranger points out, actually did rule. Those that rule merely give the appearance of such knowledge, but in the end are really sophists or imitators. For, as the Stranger maintains, a sophist is one who does not know the right thing to do, but only appears to others as someone who does. The Stranger's ideal of how one arrives at this knowledge of power is through social divisions. The Stranger takes great pains to be very specific about where and why the divisions are needed in order to rule the citizenry properly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmmmm... a vulgar moneyman, knownothing borderline-authoritarian like Trump couln't be further removed from that Platonian ideal...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ah, but he actually had listened to people that other politicians had stopped listening to and had learned something that our current elites no longer wish to acknowledge. He actually represented someone other than himself, at least, part of the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the world of Acta non Verba, the members of the UniParty have demonstrated that they only listen to their donors, even if and when they pretend to speak for their constituents.

      Delete