The Corruption of Complacency
Snaps Littlejohn
14/10/2021
We live in a world of anger and discontent. The movements we see are in retaliation of that. They’re sensationalised, exciting bursts of energy with a promise of change. But then a day passes, a week, a month, and soon we’re looking in retrospect to massive protests of the past that ended up doing nothing or having very little meaningful change. Movements doom themselves to failure before they even begin by being built with a weak sense of central unity, incoherent ideology, poor tactics and spontaneous and single-issue causes.
Perhaps what is the most obvious problem in such movements is the lack of unity in their central organisation. This leaves it wide open to reformists, opportunists, and the perils of infighting, as well as excluding key groups in the struggle for justice.
Extinction Rebellion is a fine example of organisations lacking in any kind of central planning and incoherent ideology, reliant on different groups and individuals acting autonomously to sustain itself. This has led to infighting in Extinction Rebellion and other similar groups over the topic of removing or watering down certain messages to welcome a larger base who might not have joined earlier. The British group debated whether anti-racist slogans should be stopped to include more of the right-wing populace, while in Australia it has been argued that a pro-refugee stance should not be taken to avoid alienating the larger anti-refugee population.
Their commonly used slogan ‘Beyond Politics’ is blatantly naive to wider society and the system they are supposedly trying to change. ‘System Change not Climate Change’ implies that the group understands the link of the Capitalist system to the destruction of the environment, and yet Extinction Rebellion has no qualms in rejecting socialism, the only viable alternative. In response to news proclaiming that the organisation is far left after a banner was unfurled at a rally reading ‘socialism or extinction’, Extinction Rebellion UK immediately distanced itself from the banner and declared they were not a socialist movement. This ideological disunity in groups distracts Extinction Rebellion from its true goal of climate justice. Instead, it confines them into weak spontaneous protests that will merely be a ‘flash in the pan’ without any lasting, impactful change. Under Capitalism, climate justice will never be attained, and Extinction Rebellion’s failure to recognise this will not lead to the fundamental change in society it needs.
Additionally, the spontaneous protests put on by Extinction Rebellion only serve to alienate the majority of the working class. The most common tactic in its disposal, which is stopping peak hour traffic in an attempt to quench the economic gains of capital, does nothing more than anger the workers stopped. Protestors claim that it is for the better good, but the workers trapped in the traffic caused by them would disagree. No economic loss is attained since any worker late to their job will at best miss work that day, and at worst have to make up for the lost hours. The working class is a key group to have under the banner of the climate movement, and one that is vital to the success of such movements. Instead of spontaneous protests, productive alliances with trade unions towards strikes and just transitions to sustainable energies would be far more effective. However, groups such as Extinction Rebellion have shown that this can only be achieved by a party led by the advanced sections of the working class.
Indeed, differing and disagreeing opinions in movements are no rare thing. This has been shown throughout history. However, the climate movement has been plagued into inaction and ineffectiveness by its disagreements. One major point of contention, as in other movements, is the use and definition of nonviolence and violence. Such a black and white distinction between the two is common. Liberal movements often make a point to preach that they are nonviolent, as if it somehow will absolve them of criticism and make the police and state kinder towards them. But the criteria of what is nonviolence grows narrower and narrower with each decade. A protest in the past that may be considered nonviolent then would not be now, and groups are pushed by liberals to the point where they have no meaningful impact or change, reduced to performative, virtue-signalling garbage.
“Whilst people condemn overtly violent tactics such as those that harm humans, the liberal mindset has extended the same shock and horror at ‘violent’ acts on property and machinery that should fundamentally be the target of their campaigns”
Nonviolence has classically been considered as methods that are inherently peaceful. This could be going through the ‘normal channels’ such as voting, lobbying, writing persuasive letters to politicians, participating in sit-ins, peaceful rallies, and gentle acts of civil disobedience. The methods of nonviolence are said to be even more effective than the violent approach. It’s easier for the masses to join and participate in non-violent actions, which is important to movements wanting to build their base. It’s also easier to foster positive public opinion on the movement, using the scenes from peaceful rallies as good propaganda in the media. Another side effect is that labelling oneself as peaceful may result in less oppression from authorities. Although that does not always happen, it is accounted for in the non-violent strategy. If forces respond to peaceful protestors with violence and mass arrests, then that is more appealing to the public than if they encountered the forces with violence.
However, the fetishizing of the non-violent path often chips away at the power and impact of movements over time. Whilst people condemn overtly violent tactics such as those that harm humans, the liberal mindset has extended the same shock and horror at ‘violent’ acts on property and machinery that should fundamentally be the target of their campaigns. In the privileged liberal mindset, even the acts of destruction, blockading, and harming of inanimate objects that harm both people and the earth is considered to be an unjustified violent outburst. Such mindsets push these groups into the realm of uselessness; unable and unwilling to change what is needed.
An example of the harmfulness of such a mindset is represented in the KP120 movement, created to bring awareness and change to the 120 refugees previously trapped in hotel detention in Kangaroo Point, Brisbane. KP120 attempted to stop any transport going in and out of hotel; in a bid to prevent those imprisoned inside to being moved to harsher security. For members of the group, throwing themselves in the way of the tracks of heavy vehicles was not an issue. However, the idea of rendering these very same vehicles inoperable, these tools of oppression, the machines harming those they were trying to protect, was considered too violent. In prioritising the wellbeing of the property of the oppressors over the needs of the exploited and oppressed, how can a movement be expected to succeed? This was highlighted on April 17th 2021, when the last stand for the hotel took place. The police smashed the car windows of the activists, severely injured several people, and then rode off into the sunset whilst the activists were left with dust in their eyes, pondering their failure. But at least their image was untainted by the label of ‘violence’.
Such events pose the question for us as to why we prioritise the wellbeing of the property and defenders of the ruling class over the wellbeing of the working class. Groups like Extinction Rebellion make a clear and constant effort to be courteous to police officers, and yet often these peaceful protesters nevertheless find themselves facing brutality and violence from the police. In the end, violence perpetrated by the state is seen as ‘legitimate’ and permissible, but violence committed by the minority in self-defence is condemned and labelled as terroristic. By treating anything tarred as ‘violent’ with an expression of repulsion, protestors are left defenceless in the face of legitimised state violence. Our own capitalist society is fundamentally inherently violent, and any attempts to challenge, reform or overthrow this system is met with the violence of the capitalist state and its thugs. One must look at the material needs of a movement, to analyse what is necessary to achieve change and act accordingly, rather than virtue signalling and abstracting methods as ‘wrong’ or ‘right’.
Yet, even if a movement was to utilise all the tools at its disposal, how is it to make change occur? Even if protests in the West were to start edging into the use of more ‘violent’ tactics, and even if a movement claims to want revolution or rebellion, this does not necessarily mean that meaningful change will occur. If movements lack a material analysis of the current Capitalist system and how their issues are intertwined within it, then they are doomed to failure. A violent protest that does not challenge the status quo will be met with little opposition, as the threat to the institutions are minimal. On the other hand, a protest that is entirely peaceful, yet threatens the Government and other vested interests, will be met with the full force of the state, as such challenges are seen as direct threats.
This is why actions that follow the ‘normal’, non-violent, performative liberal channels rarely work in achieving lasting change. Even Extinction Rebellion founder, Roger Hallam, hilariously agrees with this. They put the responsibility on someone else to take action, whether MP’s, leaders, businesses or governments, rather than pushing for the mass force to make change itself.
At the same time however, civil disobedience does not always guarantee effectiveness in achieving change. Performative activism is ripe within the western sphere. This has been highlighted repeatedly in recent years. An example is Disrupt Land Forces, a widely promoted and promising movement to protest the Brisbane Weapons Expo in 2021. Whilst lauding their campaign as an overwhelming success, the movement did little more than prance outside the front of the convention centre (after getting moved by police to the other side of the street), dancing their worries away, and accomplishing the great act of performative art pieces complete with dress up. Even the Grim Reaper and the Climate Angels came along for this liberal charade. Their strongest act of civil disobedience came when some activists managed to enter the convention after finding an unlocked door. Indeed, the warmongers must have trembled when the liberal uni students and boomers climbed upon a tank to shout and denigrate them for plying their trade. Perhaps their name should have tipped off what the movement was truly about, being disruption rather than dissolution. No one dared defile the tanks, and the only act of ‘violent’ property destruction was fake blood spilled on the streets and finally, a supposedly strong message, spray painted on the convention wall saying ‘Don’t come back’. The ruling class did shake in fright!
But, as we all know, without meaningful actions that lead to impacting change the weapons expo will come back again and again. As with XR, so shall climate injustice continue. And, once again, movements are left weakened and demoralised in the face of the powerful ruling class.
In looking at this state of affairs, we must realise that protests are simply a tool in the kit of political struggle, and solely using that tool will not enact meaningful change. A better analysis of why these movements form reveal the true target of their campaigns, and demonstrate that single issue movements are not powerful enough to accomplish what they want. The Capitalist society and ruling order is the reason these movements exist. However, it is only a unified, Communist party that has the qualities needed to lead the working class to address the issues that all these groups are fighting for. This applies to many issues, whether it be climate change, refugee rights or ending military imperialism. We need to build a movement that is not reliant on fragmented ideas and issues. We need to form a strong, central nucleus to organise and direct the fight against the status quo. We need to connect with the working class rather than alienating, criticising and excluding them. We must analyse our contexts and conditions to gain knowledge of what will bring meaningful change to our communities, instead of pursuing egotistical attention and media coverage. We must separate ourselves from the performative liberalism that has polluted activist circles in the west for too long. We must differentiate ourselves from pseudo-revolutionaries and moderates who care only about their image and egos. And in doing so, let us meet them on the streets, in the workplaces, in the prisons, and in the pubs, armed with the tools of revolution.
Sources:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-02/qld-defence-expo-protesters-climbed-on-tank/100185646
http://isj.org.uk/non-violence-social-change-and-revolution/
Protest in a Liberal Democracy, Brian Martin, 1986
https://redflag.org.au/node/6939
“… the Marxists-Leninists never forget that the march of history may compel the proletariat to apply more rigid methods of class struggle, to which it would prefer not to resort but which it must always be prepared to use.” (Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism, 470)