Recent Blog Posts

Germany Finally Arrests Its African Warlord

Germany Finally Arrests Its African Warlord

On November 17, 2009, German authorities arrested the head of the largest rebel force in war-torn eastern Congo, charging him with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The rebel force, known as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), is at the heart of a war in Congo that has killed an estimated six million people since 1998 – the highest war-related death toll since World War II. While this arrest is a large blow to the FDLR and brings eastern Congo closer to peace, more effort must be made to stop the principle means by which the FDLR and other armed groups get the cash to keep the war in Congo going – namely the trade in minerals that end up in our electronic gadgets such as cell phones, laptops and iPods.

Germany has been home to Ignace Murwanashyaka for over a decade. The FDLR leader actively directed his rebel army’s military operations and strategy in Congo by phone. Murwanashyaka enjoyed a peaceful life in the city of Mannheim while his troops wiped out villages, turned children into soldiers and viciously butchered countless civilians in Congo.

Fighting between the FDLR and the Congolese army has forced nearly one million people from their homes since January 2009, and an estimated 7,000 women and girls have been raped. The FDLR is purposely killing civilians to punish them for perceived support for the UN- and US-backed Congolese army offensive. They regularly use rape as a key part of their war strategy to shock communities in mineral-rich areas. To finance its operations, the FDLR makes millions of dollars annually by taxing and trading minerals such as tin and coltan, which make their way to smelters in Asia and are then processed into electronic circuit boards in our cell phones and computers.

The FDLR is a 6,000-strong Hutu extremist rebel group. Many of its members participated in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. After the genocide, the fighters who would later create the FDLR fled westward into eastern Congo, where they’ve since terrorized the region and served as an excuse for neighboring Rwanda to repeatedly invade, occupy and plunder Congo’s minerals.

The regional war in Congo has left over six million dead. An estimated 45,000 people are currently dying every month. It is estimated that over 200,000 women and girls have been raped throughout the Congo’s long war.

Germany had arrested Murwanashyaka in 2006 and attempted to prosecute him for war crimes, but they abandoned the case due to lack of evidence. Allowing the FDLR leader to live freely in exile, however, was undermining Germany’s own investments in stability in eastern Congo. In addition to the millions of dollars in humanitarian and development aid Germany has provided Congo in recent years, Germany led the EU peacekeeping mission sent to help ensure peace during Congo’s 2006 elections, providing 780 soldiers and hosting the mission’s headquarters in Potsdam. During bloody ethnic fighting in northeastern Congo in 2003, Germany sent 350 soldiers to provide medical and logistical assistance to the French-led EU peacekeeping force known as Operation Artemis.

Murwanashyaka’s arrest was likely sparked by a recent series of articles on the FDLR leader and his role in the current fighting in Congo in the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung. As the paper’s Africa editor, Dominic Johnson, explained prior to the arrest, “We hope that this investigation will contribute toward raising the profile of this issue in Germany and encouraging the German authorities to take appropriate measures. It is clear that any European effort to bring peace to Eastern DRC has to involve moving against leaders of armed groups operating from Europe with impunity.”

While Murwanashyaka is considered the chief ideologue and “supreme military commander” of the FDLR, other senior leaders continue to live freely in Europe and North America. The FDLR’s Secretary General, Callixte Mbarushimana, lives in France, for example, and French authorities are indicating that he has a right to act as the rebel force’s spokesman.

While Murwanashyaka was maintaining overall control of the FDLR and its operations, his removal is only one part of a wide-ranging strategy that is badly needed to end the horrors of this protracted war in eastern Congo. A paramount effort in this strategy must include tackling the international trade in minerals that the FDLR and other armed groups in eastern Congo use to get the funds to buy the weapons needed to massacre civilians and prolong the war. To succeed, we as consumers and citizens need to be key players in this effort. This involves encouraging our representatives in government to pass legislation requiring electronics companies to investigate and independently audit their minerals supply chains. This way, we can know if we are funding groups like the FDLR when we buy a cell phone or a laptop. While the US Senate and House of Representatives are currently considering such bills – the Congo Conflict Minerals Act and the Conflict Minerals Trade Act, respectively – more countries need to develop similar measures. Since the electronics industry has already spent roughly $6 million this year lobbying to water the bill down, we need to put pressure on electronics companies by writing and urging them to find out and make public where they get their minerals. We have a right to know if they are ultimately sourced from war-torn parts of eastern Congo.

Greg Queyranne, MA, is a Canadian researcher focusing on conflicts in central Africa. He can be reached at gregoryqueyranne@hotmail.com.

Steel Yourself and Act

Steel Yourself and Act

Before an action, I am turmoil inside. I tremble – waves of anxiety crash over me and my fearful mind imagines the worst. And yet, the decision to act made and the plan formed, I do not try to suppress the emotions that surge through me, but focus on enjoying them. So rarely do I feel this intensity, that in the days leading up to civil disobedience I accept my fear as a beautiful aspect of being alive.

Each time is easier than the last. We know that already from our Buy Nothing Day attempts in the past. At first our friends’ ridicule and their cynical smirks made it frightening to follow through with our vow to take the day off from consumerism. And then it was difficult, but rewarding, to muster the courage to do a zombie walk through the mall while consumers stared and security scowled. Now, after years of the situation getting direr and our actions building in intensity, we must not hesitate to do what we have never done before: pull off acts of silent sabotage.

Chris Hedges said it best: “Our way of life is over. Our profligate consumption is finished. Our children will never have the standard of living we had. This is the bleak future. This is reality.” Only a drastic and immediate decrease in “first world” consumption can save us from collapse. But our culture is paralyzed and our “leaders” silent. That is why we must now begin a campaign of civil disobedience against consumer capitalism – transform ourselves from consumers to citizen saboteurs.

So check in with yourself, read the following links and decide how far you are prepared to go. While some of us will engage in pranks, shenanigans, credit card cut-ups, mall invasions and all manner of culture jams and creative détournements, others (maybe you?) will go even further with sit-ins, acts of nonviolent defiance, anarchy and civil disobedience. This Buy Nothing Day, we’re sparking global revolution.


Suggested Readings

The Spirit of Revolt by Pyotr Kropotkin

“What forms will this action take? All forms – indeed, the most varied forms, dictated by circumstances, temperament and the means at disposal. Sometimes tragic, sometimes humorous, but always daring; sometimes collective, sometimes purely individual, this policy of action will neglect none of the means at hand, no event of public life, in order to keep the spirit alive, to propagate and find expression for dissatisfaction, to excite hatred against exploiters, to ridicule the government and expose its weakness and above all and always, by actual example, to awaken courage and fan the spirit of revolt.”

Read more

Timeline of Insurrection

“The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us” —Patrick Henry, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death”

Read more

The Call by Tiqqun

“Our strategy is therefore the following: to immediately establish a series of foci of desertion, of secession poles, of rallying points. For the runaways. For those who leave. A set of places to take shelter from the control of a civilization that is headed for the abyss. It is a matter of giving ourselves the means, of finding the scale in which all those questions, which when addressed separately can drive one to depression, can be resolved.”

Read more

In Defense of Heidegger

In Defense of Heidegger

Martin Heidegger

One of the best novels I have ever read won the Nobel Prize in 1920. Written by Knut Hamsun, Growth of the Soil is a beautiful fable about modernization, self-sufficiency, love and the magic of imagination. I love and treasure this book, so imagine my dismay when I discovered that Hamsun earnestly supported the Nazis and that two decades after writing the novel he met with Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels. And it gets worse: at that meeting he gave Goebbels his Nobel Prize medal as a token of his esteem for the Nazi movement!

Let no one deny that Hamsun – like Ezra Pound and a number of prominent intellectuals during World War 2 – was a Nazi and a fascist. Hamsun is nonetheless deemed safe to read because he is largely forgotten and the Nazi implications of his works are considered of academic interest only. The same is not true, however, for the German philosopher Martin Heidegger.

Nearly every essay, seminar and lecture about Martin Heidegger begins with a reminder that he was a Nazi in 1933. Some anti-Heideggerians – presuming that his thought is contaminated – have taken it upon themselves to reveal his fascistic impulses, arguing that it is best to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to his corpus. The war against Heidegger has been raging for over 70 years: it began when the Nazi regime ostracized him, escalated when the postwar de-Nazification tribunal prevented him from teaching and continues today with attempts to remove him from the canon of Western thought. The interesting aspect of all this is not that Heidegger is being attacked (I take his ability to keep the debate raging even after his death as a mark of his genius), but that those in power are scared of Martin Heidegger.

We all know that power has an amazing ability to co-opt resistance. While philosophers bemoan Nietzsche’s appropriation by anti-Semites, an ideology he deplored, activists in solidarity with Palestine are aghast to see the Keffiyeh sold in malls as just another consumer item. The ability of capitalism to turn resistance into complicity is so common that we ought to pay less attention to successful appropriations and more to the failed attempts. So rarely is appropriation deemed impossible by power that when it occurs we should explore the indigestible idea. Why are we told that Heidegger must be burned? Why isn’t he being co-opted instead?

I would argue that while Hamsun has been appropriated, his books are published by Penguin Classics and sold at mega-stores, it has not been so easy to pervert Heidegger. Martin Heidegger is an essential thinker and despite some protest, his thought can never be put back in the bottle. If we wish to get rid of Heidegger, we must also rid ourselves of almost all contemporary French and German philosophy: No more Derrida, Foucault, Ronell, Badiou and Agamben. Because Heideggerian interpretations of the past abound, we would also have to do away with much of our past. Nietzsche would be the first to go because Heidegger was one of the first to take his legacy away from the Nazis.

The danger of Heidegger is that he courted power, was rebuffed and then lived the rest of his life as an outcast – an intellectual exile few would touch. Such lives are resistant to the allures of power. His experiences under Nazism, led Heidegger to develop an anti-capitalist, anti-scientific, anti-modern, anti-democratic and even anti-Nazi philosophy. Living in a hut without running water and electricity, Heidegger crafted an entirely new way of thinking that has changed the course of Western thought. Do not believe their protestations: the dangers Heidegger’s theory pose to power don’t lie in Nazi or fascistic undertones. Consumerism is scared of Heidegger because of his ability to cultivate a new relation to all that exists. That new relation is not one of power but of stewardship.

At this moment in history – when technology and consumerism are leading us toward catastrophe – Heidegger may be presenting the only way out. If the fearful reaction to his work grows, it will not be because he is evil, but because power finally faces a foe whose assimilation would be ruinous to the wasteland of consumerism.

To discover the magic of Martin Heidegger, begin with his most accessible work: “The Question Concerning Technology”.

Micah White is a contributing editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He lives in Berkeley, CA and is currently writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org

Enforced Humility

Enforced Humility

Salvador is a Mexican migrant laborer who works on a farm in southern Ontario. At first glance he is a small and unassuming man, but one conversation reveals that he is well-read, intelligent and speaks powerfully on world history, politics and philosophy. One day working beside him reveals a nearly unbelievable work ethic: he works at full speed all day every day.

Salvador told me about a farm he worked on in Manitoba. The Mexican workers were packaging vegetables one day and the boss’s dad (the retired farm owner) came in and starting kicking up a huge fuss about them being too selective with the quality of the vegetables: “Don’t throw that out,” “that’s perfectly ok,” etc. So they lowered the quality a little bit. A few days later, some of the orders got returned because the quality was too poor. The boss asked around wondering what had happened. An employee named Guillermo told him that the boss’s dad had instructed them to be more lenient with the selection. This got back to the dad, who pulled Guillermo into the lunchroom and beat the shit out of him. Guillermo did not fight back, and came out of the room with some serious damage to his face.

A few days later, Salvador was working out in the field. He was standing on a wagon that the boss was recklessly driving around and he fell off and broke his arm. Salvador was taken back to the bunkhouse, with no word about if or when he’d get to see a doctor. He sat waiting in agonizing pain with no access to painkillers. After four or five hours, he called the Mexican consulate, which is supposed to represent the interests of its compatriot workers. The consulate told him that he was there to work and instructed him not to cause any trouble. Salvador was incensed. He thought, “fuck this, we are being treated like animals out here, I’m calling the police.” And he did. He dialled 911 and asked for someone who spoke Spanish. He told them about his accident and lack of treatment. They said it didn’t sound like a criminal offence, but they could send an ambulance. He told them about Guillermo’s beating and messed up face. This was of more interest to them. They sent out a police cruiser and when the officers saw Guillermo and his bruises they arrested the boss’s dad. As sweet as this sight must have been, it was merely a temporary victory. Was there a trial? Was Guillermo’s testimony taken? No. Within a few days, both Guillermo and Salvador were back in Mexico. Guillermo swore to never return to this country. Salvador requested to switch to a different farm.

I spent the last four and a half months working and living with Mexican migrant farm workers on two farms in southern Ontario. Ten thousand Mexicans and over ten thousand other foreigners come to Canada each year to work on farms, in greenhouses and in food packaging plants. The story Salvador told me is not at all unusual, I heard many more like it.  

Before this summer, I didn’t even know that a migrant labor program existed. I didn’t know that workers are often provided inadequate housing, work in poor conditions and are frequently disrespected by their employers and other Canadians. I didn’t know that the rights guaranteed to Canadian workers are often glossed over and ignored in the case of foreign migrant workers and that despite paying the same taxes they are treated as an underclass.

But this is not my life. It was just my summer. I was merely an observer, a student. Conversation by conversation, I learned of the abuse, the horrendous conditions, the tyrannical bosses, the goals and dreams, the drive and determination, the unwavering positive outlook.

Mexican workers come to Canada for the incredible financial opportunity: daily wages can be as much as eight times higher than those in Mexico. Life for the poor in Mexico is somewhat desperate. The difficulty of creating better lives for their families is staggering – few can hope to give their kids a decent house, a good education, the opportunity to escape the hard-work/low-pay lives of their parents. In Mexico avenues out of this poverty simply do not exist. Canada is a way to get a leg up.

Mexicans also come because they are desperately needed. Many Canadian farms do not operate with Canadian labor. Farm work is incredibly unattractive to most Canadians: it is difficult, the hours are long and irregular and the pay is minimum wage. Furthermore, many of the benefits and rights that apply to all other workers in this country – overtime, holiday pay, paid breaks – do not apply to agricultural workers in many provinces. At most sizeable Canadian farms, Canadian workers probably hold managerial positions while temporary foreign workers do the labor. The way our economy and agriculture is set up, it would be impossible to grow our own food without migrant workers from Mexico, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guatemala, Thailand and elsewhere. When you “buy Canadian” produce you are probably buying food grown in Canada by foreign migrant laborers.

The Mexican migrant labor program, the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP), is a joint venture between the Canadian and Mexican governments. It is attractive to Mexico for alleviating unemployment and underemployment and bringing in money from Canada. It is attractive to Canada for providing the farm labor we cannot get at home. Mexican workers are supposed to have the same rights and get the same benefits as Canadian workers, but this is far from the case. 

Workers are frequently accommodated in substandard housing. I heard many horror stories: a 20-man house with one bathroom, one refrigerator and one stove; group showers; ten-by-ten rooms housing four people; bathroom lines so long that men resort to showering with the garden hose; improvised housing with no insulation. According to the SAWP contract, the housing provided by employers must pass an inspection, but it is unclear who is performing these inspections and what criteria they are following.

Farm work is by nature unsafe. This is especially problematic when you are a migrant worker who is eager to please and extremely hesitant to raise concerns for fear of being reprimanded or repatriated. When workers get injured, the solution is often to ship them back to Mexico where they are supposed to be able to receive care paid for by their health insurance. In practice, it is often very difficult or near impossible to collect insurance payments in Mexico and certain treatments are difficult to access, such as dialysis for severe pesticide exposure. Despite the fact they pay for Canadian health care with their taxes, Mexican laborers usually end up receiving far inferior care to what they would get in Canada or no care at all. My coworker Mauricio expressed the sentiments of many Mexicans: “Here, no one is valuable. You get sick, they send you back to Mexico and send another burro [donkey] to replace you.” The reality is that migrant workers are often treated as worthless, faceless, exchangeable beasts of burden – expected to do what they’re told and be grateful for whatever they get. Except in the most rare scenarios, they are treated as units of labor rather than human beings. 

In order to return to the same farm each season, Mexican migrant workers must be “named” by their Canadian employers. If they’re not named, they can be placed on a different farm and it is not uncommon for unnamed workers to miss a season or two while the Mexican Ministry of Labor finds a placement. The naming process is the cloud that looms over the migrant worker’s every action. If a worker is not named he could miss a season or two, which could wreak havoc on his family’s finances. When he returns to work, there’s no telling what kind of farm he could end up at. The naming process means that if the worker finds himself in a tolerable situation, it is in his best interest to cause as little trouble as possible to the employer and to only draw attention to himself for being a good worker. Any other attention is dangerous and puts his family’s economic security at risk.  

A few years ago, my coworker Mauricio landed on a farm with a problematic supervisor. The supervisor would switch the workers’ hours around to suit his own erratic schedule. Some days they’d work normal hours and others they’d work 2 p.m. until 3 a.m – they were completely at the mercy of the supervisor. Mauricio made a complaint to the Mexican consulate, which did nothing of any consequence. Mauricio’s boss did, however, get wind of the complaint and began to drastically reduce Mauricio’s hours. The farmer did not request Mauricio the next year, and told other farmers in the area to avoid employing him since he was a “troublemaker” and too “political.” The message is clear: never complain. This condition bleeds into every aspect of migrant workers lives. Most are hesitant to complain about poor living conditions or even to ask for something broken in the house to be fixed. They generally do not express grievances. They are often reluctant to see the doctor – partially because they don’t want to lose the wages that they would earn during the trip, partially because they don’t want to cause a hassle. To stick out is to put your family at risk: You get insulted, you swallow it; you get beaten, you deal with it; you get assigned a dangerous job, you do it the best you can. The onus of providing for your family outweighs the right to refuse dangerous jobs.

The whole experience of being a migrant worker is one of enforced humility. When you come to Canada, you are no longer in control of your life, no longer the head of a household, no longer your own man. You are a servant whose entire life is in the hands of the employer. Many men come to Canada and are not even aware of where they are on a map. They live where they are told, work when they are told, do what they are told. They are stripped of all independence and privacy and often subjected to verbal and physical abuse.

A real tyrant ran one farm a coworker told me about. Some of his favourite catchphrases were: “What the fuck are you doing? You animals! This is kindergarteners’ work! If you don’t want to work, you can go back to Mexico!” One day the boss threw a tantrum and one worker couldn’t take it. He threw what he was carrying to the ground, cussed out the boss and said, “you do it.” The boss called a meeting with the worker and a translator and told the worker that he was getting a warning: One more slip-up and he’d be on the first plane back to Mexico. The next day, the boss heard that the worker had said he didn’t have the balls to send him back to Mexico. Two days later, the worker was gone. His peers were not surprised and almost seemed to blame the worker. He had essentially broken a cardinal rule of migrant labor: Do not draw unnecessary attention to yourself, and do not under any circumstances have any conflict with the boss.

Mexican workers experience poor conditions, racism and assaults on their dignity in Canada, but their treatment at the hands of the Mexican government is not much better. To most members of the Mexican consulate and the Mexican Ministry of Labor, the Mexicans who come to Canada are simpleminded, childlike men who need to be told what to do and should be scolded for doing otherwise. The standard response when a worker calls to complain to the consulate is: “Don’t cause trouble. You’ve come here to work, so work.” It doesn’t seem to matter what the complaint is: an untreated injury, abusive supervisors or unfair practices. Other men have told me of ministry officials saying “Now, don’t go get drunk in Canada. You’re going there to work. You are a representative of Mexico in Canada, so don’t embarrass us.” The message to the workers is clear: “It’s not about you. It’s about the farms. If you aren’t grateful for the crumbs you work for, you can get the hell out. We care about you only in writing. You are a mule and mules are replaceable.”

Mexican workers in Canada are almost completely without allies. One of their few friends is the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (UFCW), the national farm workers’ union. The UFCW is one of the few groups dedicated to fighting for migrant workers. They are in an incredibly difficult position, however, because it is so dangerous for migrant workers to even talk about unionizing. It is very common for unionizing workers not to be requested the next year, or even to be sent back to Mexico prematurely. The governments of Ontario and Alberta have taken the position that farm workers do not have the right to unionize.

During my time on the farms, I developed a deep respect and admiration for many of my Mexican coworkers. They are humble and diligent men for whom self-sacrifice in the interest of their families comes instinctively. My friend Jacobo had been working in Canada for three or four years to complete construction of his house. He was almost done when he found out that his sister’s child had cancer. Jacobo finished his house, gave it to his sister’s family and began working to complete her half-finished house. You get the sense that this was not a difficult decision for him. His sister needed the house more, so he gave it to her. Plain and simple. I got to know men who have been coming to Canada for 10, 15, 20 years, working little by little to improve their lives in Mexico. Some of their children are lawyers, doctors, scientists, veterinarians, teachers. Their hard work has paid off but they don’t brag, they just keep working. A lot of Canadians think that because the Mexicans keep coming back every year, there are no major problems with the SAWP program. I disagree – the treatment many of them get here is despicable. It is not good enough to treat foreign workers as second-class, to have one set of rights for Canadians and another for Mexicans.

Few people even know that tens of thousands of migrant workers come to Canada every year. They might buy Canadian food, but they probably don’t know that it is grown by Mexicans and Jamaicans and Guatemalans. They don’t know who or what is behind the tomatoes, apples, broccoli and onions. They don’t know that a government-managed program imports workers from foreign countries and allows them to be treated like cattle. They don’t know about living in converted barns with no insulation in October and November. They don’t know about the crowded bedrooms, the leaking roofs, the broken kitchen appliances. They don’t know about the 30-minute bike rides to find a payphone to call home, the disrespect and racism on the streets, in banks, in stores. They don’t know about Western Union employees washing their hands with Purell after dealing with each Mexican worker, the very Mexican workers who keep them open by sending 80 percent of their paychecks home every payday. They don’t know about supervisors constantly checking men’s work, telling them to go faster, do better, telling them they better shape up or get shipped back to Mexico. They don’t know about 60, 70, 80, even 90-hour weeks. They don’t know about the stress of being separated from family for months at a time, of being in an all-male, high-testosterone environment. They don’t know about rich people in Mercedes Benzes coming to Mexicans’ houses and accusing them of stealing car parts. They don’t know about coming to Canada to work your ass off only to be treated as a threat, a criminal, someone to be avoided. They don’t know how hard it is to try to learn a few phrases of English when you only have a 6th grade education, how intimidating it is to try to communicate in a foreign land and foreign tongue with people who often do not have the patience to understand.

Canadians are largely ignorant of this reality, but we implicitly support it by buying Canadian produce, by electing governments that perpetuate it and by remaining quiet and unaware. It’s time to learn what’s going on.

Edward Dunsworth

The Army of the Republic

An interview with author Stuart Archer Cohen.

The Army of the Republic by Stuart Archer Cohen is one of those rare books that should be on the shelf of every activist. Cohen tells the story of an insurrection in the United States through the eyes of a militant, a corporate CEO and a nonviolent protest organizer. The Army of the Republic is a powerful imagining of what might have happened if the activists at the WTO in Seattle 1999 had been backed up by armed insurrectionaries. And while the book does not shy away from exploring the allure of violence and its potential positive use, Cohen also asks his readers to reflect on the deep, ethical dilemmas that come with insurrection.

One of the best contemporary novels about activism published in years, The Army of the Republic explores the limits of violence and the potential for insurrection. While ultimately Cohen personally embraces the nonviolent protest model for social change, his book leaves the debate open.

Cohen spoke about his book and the ethical dilemmas of violence in a recent interview with Adbusters contributing editor Micah White.

ADBUSTERS: What has been the reception to your book?

STUART COHEN: It has been very mixed. A review in the New York Times really pissed on it. And to me it seemed like the reviewer willfully misread the book. On the other hand, the community that has been most supportive has been the libertarian community. I think the book angers people and makes them uncomfortable because it is close to what has been happening.

I’d say generally that a lot of people are made uncomfortable by the fact that the urban guerrillas in the book are not portrayed as monsters or terrorists but rather as people who are responding to a situation. It’s been accused of romanticizing terrorism and that sort of thing.

AB: It seems to me that your book is one of the first to seriously consider the idea that an insurgent movement could play a positive political role because it forms a fringe that empowers the mainstream movement. Do you think insurgents in America could play a positive role?

SC: That was one of the questions that I set out to answer when I started the book because I had seen a lot of insurgencies in Latin America. I wondered, “Well, is it ever justified to kill the corner policeman to make a better world?”

I would say that the fringes define what the middle is. I don’t think that violent resistance can be controlled or that you can control the reaction to it. And it is usually more negative. Usually there is a more peaceful way to get things done. But I don’t think the urban guerrillas in the book are completely wrong either. It is a gray area. Measured on the whole it usually brings much more misery than it’s worth. And I think you can tell from the book that my position is that activism – that middle way – is important.

It is a tough question and I haven’t completely decided.

Is there a role for insurgents? Oh gosh … I’d say only in a really, really extreme situation and I’m not sure that the one in the book really merits the violence of the insurgents. I think in the book there is still a space for civil resistance to operate. And I think in the book the insurgents provide an excuse for the regime to become equally violent.

But there is a point where you feel like you must act. When they assassinate businessman John Polling in the beginning of the book, it is great. But by the end of the book the insurgents are abducting people and killing the people’s children by accident. And that is invariably what ends up happening, no matter how careful you are.

AB: It seems to me that your book tries to redeem protest movements of their post 9/11 failures. And the primary argument of the book appears to be that only a mass movement can achieve the change that we want.

SC: Yes, definitely. What happens is that extremist groups like the urban guerrillas in the book are invariably painted as terrorists by the mainstream media, which is in essence state media. And so they always lose the battle of the story. And that is what happens with all the urban guerrilla groups in the book. So what happens is that they typically get more and more separated from the mass movements.

The guerrilla groups I studied the most were in Argentina: the Montoneros and the Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo. And I interviewed some of those people and read their autobiographies and biographies. These groups always start out trying to organize people and then repression forces them to become violent because their ability to organize gets pushed underground when the government comes down on them. They become violent when they are not able to exercise their rights.

But once you go underground you no longer have contact with the mass movement: the people in the factories, in the streets and so on. It becomes harder to maintain that contact so that you think you are fighting for the People, with a capital P, but you become cut off from those people. That is what happens with the urban guerrillas in the book.

I think it is the mass movements, finally, that make the gains.

AB: Do you feel optimistic that protests can become effective again?

SC: Yes, I do. Not every protest is going to be successful. The protest I studied the most for the book was the Battle of Seattle, WTO 1999. I talked to some of the organizers and read a lot about it. That protest was successful because they were using strategies that had been used before but were not well known. And they had a police chief who was pretty fair-minded, who did want to go in and just brutally crush the protesters.

One conclusion I came to about that protest is that you wouldn’t have heard a word about the WTO if people hadn’t broken windows. And not everybody agrees with me. But my personal feeling is that if you don’t get some extremists who go out and break some windows then nobody cares. It is sad to say but breaking windows is a symbol that people really care. And I have trouble advocating that because the state, on the other hand, is obligated to keep order. You have to ask yourself whether the state has a duty to all its citizens to keep order. And so those kinds of questions are going to be in opposition.

I don’t want to advocate civil disorder and smashing stuff. But I do think civil protests have a place. And sometimes, unruly protests have a place in the whole spectrum of citizens voicing their opinions.

AB: Can violence play a positive role in contemporary politics?

SC: That’s a tough one … because if I say yes to that then I am also saying yes to right-wing violence. I’d say there is a role for civil disobedience, and there always will be. A lot of the activists I talked to drew a distinction between violence against property and violence against people, and I think that is an important distinction. It gets murky very quickly though. You and I might rejoice when people destroy Monsanto’s next franken-gene, for example, but how do we feel when some white supremacist burns down a black church in Alabama? We are happy when Greenpeace blocks a whaling ship, but what about when people block an abortion clinic?

It is hard to lay down a rule. I think there is always a place for civil disobedience. That is what I will say.

AB: What is intellectually rewarding about your book is it presents these types of ethical dilemmas and does not resolve them fully.

SC: Yeah, and I was not able to resolve many of the dilemmas myself. I think in some cases violence is justified but it is not justified in the book, yet.

AB: Do you think that we are moving toward a kind of cultural civil war in America? Will the events you describe in your book happen?

SC: I’m mixed about it. Right now I’m working on an article called “Revolution from the Right” and my take is that there is zero chance of a popular revolution from the right. However, I think there are other dangers. The right wing usually seizes power through coups and they may use popular Brown Shirt movements – we got a taste of that with the Tea Party Movement. I think if Obama fails, or if there is a major economic meltdown all bets are off. And this last bout of economic collapse was nothing, I’ve been in countries when they’ve had economic meltdowns and it is a whole different reality: the banks close, people go out and burn the banks, police are everywhere and there is a 6,000% inflation rate so stores don’t even put prices up … that’s what real economic collapse looks like.

I think events could play out like in my book. I think the right wing could easily seize power either through an election or a fake election. I think privatization is the next big goal. If the corporates can get a pro-corporate, right wing government in power then it will play out like in the book. All our manufacturing is already offshore; if you are not making anything, where is the money? It is in services. Suddenly you can turn the highway into a service that you must pay for. Water is the service that is exploited in the book.

In this country we’ve never had a media whose sole purpose was to foment hatred like we do now. It didn’t even exist during the McCarthy era. I don’t know how well a democratic society can survive that.

AB: What do you hope to achieve with your book?

SC: I want people to wake up and realize this is what democracy is. I want people to think about what democracy is. I wanted to think about the idea of armed struggle, the idea that you can go and just get that one bad guy and take him out with a sniper rifle. This idea is very appealing on the right and the left.

There are two cautionary messages: First, once you start the path of violent resistance, you cannot control it and it comes with a lot of unintended consequences. The other message is directed at the corporate elite: “You can get everything you want, but there are some real consequences of that.” And this book is about those consequences.

Micah White is a contributing editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He lives in Berkeley, CA and is currently writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org

Neoclassical Sheep Walk

Neoclassical Sheep Walk

As the old paradigm crumbles, the fatal flaws of neoclassical economics are quickly being exposed to the world. This is a time of reawakening and rebirth: the age in which a new, more chaotic, more biologically and ecologically based paradigm is struggling to be born. This is the moment to align ourselves with the mavericks – to become agitators and provocateurs. This is the moment to openly challenge our professors and their neoclassical dogma and force the world to face the havoc their models have wrought. You can start by printing off the Kick it Over Manifesto and nailing it, Martin Luther-style, to your professor’s door. Then try staging a Neoclassical Sheep Walk down the corridor of your economics department.

Make this global campus uprising unstoppable.

You can download the manifesto at kickitover.org.

In Defense of Good

In Defense of Good

Photo: Fereydoon Family - Man Holding His Thumb Under His Chin.

I‘m not a community organizer. I’m not a scientist. I’m not a journalist or someone who rallies a crowd with a powerfully moving speech. I’m not an electrician, a businessman, a mechanic or a waiter. I happen to be a designer.

I like using visual communication to convey information or to inspire people to action. I like working with different types of people from different backgrounds who have different needs and goals in our visual, media-driven culture. And I take the need for us all to be citizens in this increasingly complicated world seriously. That’s why I find it refreshing to see the good design movement really begin to take hold.

It isn’t hard to see how designers can be out of touch at times. We can come off like our only responsibility is to “the design,” that our role begins and ends there. We simply make a piece of visual communication beautiful and let the magic of the marketplace move the shoes, the Cokes/Pepsis, the coal trains. But looking at our job so narrowly – simply acting as accomplices to that derivative, that oil spill, that lust to be thin – is not a good thing. Are we comfortable being an army of little capitalists so immersed in the “free market” that we refuse to ask the tough questions and only seek to flex our aesthetic muscle?

To design for a project is to support it. What the good design movement is doing is essentially communicating our support of equality, sustainability, fairness and hope. We are stepping out of our comfort zones, looking at what exactly it is we do all day and finding opportunities to build rather than just sell. We know that design should work not only to better itself, but our communities as well – both local and global. So why is good design the target of criticism?

People often question the motives of designers who work on social projects, saying “they just want to feel better about themselves,” and it’s frustrating. What’s wrong with designers wanting to feel better about themselves and their work? Why isn’t anyone questioning the motive of designers working on Nike, Coke or Pepsi accounts? Just what do we want design to be?

Do we really want our best visual communication to be in favor of Burger King? Do we really want our finest efforts going toward shoes? Is this the rightful place for design? Should the best creative minds of our generation be so focused on high-gloss dishonesty?

I don’t think so. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that many other designers don’t think so either.

We have to get past the “we design and that’s our only responsibility” mentality. When we design, our choices matter, our intentions matter. That’s why we’re all designers anyway, right? We like to be seen and share in the world at large. All these good design efforts – professionals and students actually giving a damn about what’s happening out there and wanting to help make things better – is a profoundly good thing. Trend? Maybe. Seismic shift? Let’s hope so.

Whether we like it or not, designers do pick sides, just like fonts and color palettes. Which side are we better suited for: The fast-paced, high-gloss of a Just Do It campaign, or the slow, messy process of designing a more fair and equal place to live?

Justin Kemerling is working toward being a community activist designer, justinkemerling.com.

Canada's Media Mogul Goes Bankrupt

Canada's Media Mogul Goes Bankrupt
 

When Canwest – Canada’s largest media conglomerate and Adbusters’ longtime adversary – filed for court protection against creditors earlier this month, the company left a lot of people high and dry. In addition to the long line of creditors the company is trying to default on, dozens of recently laid off employees will lose their promised severance packages, 80 non-union retirees will lose their health benefits and 120 former employees are facing reduced pensions.

Oh well, times are tough. Everybody’s taking a hit right now, right?

Wrong. Three Canwest directors, four top executives and 13 other senior members of Canwest management will PROFIT from this mess, splitting $9.8 million in Key Employee Retention Plan bonuses. That’s in addition to their already exorbitant salaries. So in one of the most baffling phenomena to come out of this current economic crisis, the very execs who drove the company into the ground are being paid millions of dollars to stay. Everyone else is simply out of luck.

This outrage is the latest hurdle in our protracted battle against Canwest and would-be media mogul Leonard Asper. We’ve been fighting Leonard in court for years, battling for the right of Canadian citizens to access their own public airwaves under the same rules and conditions as corporations and ad agencies do. It’s been a long, hard and expensive fight but finally, last April, a BC Court of Appeals overturned previous rulings and declared that television airtime may indeed constitute the “public space” we have claimed it to be. The ruling cleared the way for us to move forward against media corporations like Canwest that refuse to sell airtime for citizen-produced messages.

Canwest fought back with a technical challenge. They knew they couldn’t defeat us on the principle of free speech so they went after our pocketbook, hoping to tie us up in nonsense litigation and deplete our modest coffers. But in September, we won again. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Canwest’s challenge and gave us the green light to pursue our case in the lower courts. The courts also ruled that Canwest is liable for a portion of Adbusters’ legal costs.

But suddenly Canwest is out of money. And Adbusters joins the ranks of employees and creditors the media giant is refusing to pay. But we’re looking at the bright side of things … it seems Asper’s media empire (the one he inherited from daddy) is beginning to crumble. And any blow against his biased, autocratic rule is worth the money. With Conrad Black in jail and Asper on the run, we may finally be on the road to ending media tyranny in Canada once and for all!

For the Wild, Kalle

Wildcat General Strike

Wildcat General Strike

Buy Nothing Day was a radical concept when we first introduced it 20 years ago. It struck a blow against the very heart of our consumer culture. For the first decade of its existence it had a profound and sweeping effect, shining a light on the dark side of consumerism at a time when the world was largely oblivious to its insidious effects. Year after year it fired up the world’s imagination – inspiring its fair share of sympathy and solidarity, resistance and mockery. I remember people laughing their heads off at the sight of my BND button. But somehow, as the years wore on (and despite the fact that last year it was celebrated in 65 countries around the world), the day seems to be losing its edge. Now, as humanity faces crises of ecology, psychology and faith, the time has come to rethink the day, to reanimate it with new intensity, purpose and scale.

This year we’re calling for a wildcat general strike. On November 27/28 we’re asking tens of millions of people around the world to bring the capitalist consumption machine to a grinding – if only momentary – halt. We want you to shut off your lights, your televisions and other nonessential appliances. We want you to park your car, turn off your phones and log off your computer for the day. We’re calling for a Ramadan-like fast. From sunrise to sunset, we abstain en masse. Not only from shopping but from all the temptations of our five-planet lifestyles.

Instead we’ll feed our spirits and minds with a feast of subversive activities: pranks, shenanigans, credit card cut-ups, bicycle swarms, mall invasions and all manner of culture jams and creative détournements … and some of us will take things even further with sit-ins, demonstrations, passive resistance and acts of nonviolent defiance, anarchy and civil disobedience. If we can create a big enough ruckus on November 27/28, then we may be able to catalyze what the Situationists tried to set in motion half a century ago: a chain reaction of refusal against consumer capitalism … a sudden, unexpected moment of truth … the first ever global revolution.

The Peace Process

Palestine is eroded piece by piece.

The corporate media in the West have successfully manufactured the public belief that only the violence of non-state actors should be considered terrorism. It requires a great deal of mental discipline to deny the fact that any act perpetrated to instill terror can legitimately be considered terrorism. State terrorism is the use of military force and secret police tactics against domestic and foreign opponents of a state. State terror tactics have traditionally included outright invasions, air strikes, Special Forces operations, assassination programs, kidnappings, arbitrary imprisonments, extrajudicial killings, torture and the direct support of brutal regimes.


The Strategic Value of Maintaining Strife in the Middle East


It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the US government has no interest in a genuine two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. The US government seems dedicated to supporting the normalization of permanent strife in the Middle East to justify their military and economic presence in the region. The established US record of supporting military dictators like Saddam Hussein and religious despots like the king of Saudi Arabia have consistently fostered discontent and resentment in the region. There is evidence reported in a January 2008 edition of the Ottawa Citizen indicating that the Muslim world does not hate the US for cultural reasons but instead deeply resents American interference in issues like the endless Palestinian/Israeli conflict. According to political scientists Peter Furia and Russell Lucas, “[we found] … no evidence that ordinary Arabs resent countries [the US] for what they are, and considerable evidence that they resent them for what they do.” This evidence contradicts George Bush’s facile claim that Muslims hate Western freedom so much that they feel obliged to destroy the secular world.


Occupation and the Continuing Erosion of Ever-Tenuous Palestinian Sovereignty


The seizure of Palestinian territory has traditionally been accomplished in intentionally stealthy increments. It started long before the creation of modern Israel following the annexation of Palestine in 1948. As Noam Chomsky describes in Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy: “Those familiar with the history of Zionism will recognize the method, dating back to the 1920s: ‘dunam [settlement] after dunam,’ arousing as little attention as possible.” The modern equivalent was expressed in the 1996 comments of then Israeli housing minister, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, when he described Israeli expansion into the West Bank: “I build quietly. My goal is to build and not encourage opposition to my efforts. What is important to me is to build, build, build and build some more.” The Israeli government, with full US support, has traditionally chosen this subtle and gradual path of seizing Palestinian lands and, perhaps more importantly, water resources. It continues to this day, generally with either US indifference or mild rebukes. This is the reality of what is euphemistically referred to as the peace process.


Peace is Possible


A two-state solution recognizing the mutual right to national self-determination is the only reasonable solution to the Palestinian/Israeli divide. Only the US government has the power and influence to generate this reality. Only the US has the military authority to ensure that established borders and agreements be respected. Only the US has sufficient influence over the United Nations to convince Israel to accept UN peacekeeping forces on its territory in a buffer zone between Israeli territory and Palestinian territory and to ensure a fair allocation of water and natural resources between Palestinian and Israeli.


Morgan Duchesney is a Canadian writer and martial arts instructor with an interest in social justice and international affairs. He has published work on the war in Afghanistan, Canadian democracy, the Canadian banking system and various martial arts topics. He holds an MA in Political Economy from Carleton University in Ottawa. Read the full text of this essay at honeybadgerpress.ca/articles.

We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.

Now 83,838 strong!

Join Us >>

TOOLS FOR ACTIVISTS

What's This?

RECENT ADBUSTERS MAGAZINES

Logo Small