Monthly Archives: March 2016

Forum on People’s Struggles

forum_poster

Come to the event that Dacyn and Simon have been organizing!

Forum on Peoples’ Struggles

Today (Friday), 4-6pm
Barber Centre Room 155

Although geographically in different regions on the globe, activists, indigenous peoples and citizens are facing very much the same struggles against increasingly repressive states and corporations. The same mechanism to suppress dissent has caused extrajudicial killings of journalists, and activists in the Philippines, as well as the arrest of Dr. G. N. Saibaba along with student leaders involved with the Jawaharal Nehru University protests in India. The same mechanisms are used by Canadian resource extraction companies to plunder land in the Philippines, India, and the Americas, while we turn a blind eye to this injustice. The same mechanisms to uproot indigenous communities have caused 40000 Lumads (indigenous peoples) in Philippines to be displaced, not to mention that the same displacement perpetrated by the state and its partners occurs to this day in the Americas.

In response to these struggles, and courageous resistance to repressive states and corporations presently happening around the world, the Revolutionary Student Movement – Vancouver chapter would like to inform students on campus about them, especially when these issues are not discussed in the lecture hall or reported widely in the media. We will be hosting a forum in the Irving K. Barber Learning Centre, Room 155 on Friday March 4th 2016 from 4-6pm where a number of speakers will be giving some presentations about these global issues. Coffee will be provided at the event. Furthermore, panelists include:
– Eviatar Bach, of the UBC Social Justice Centre, who will speak on mining injustice.
– Lakhbir Khunkhun, of the East Indian Defence Committee (EIDC), who will speak on state repression in India.
– Representatives from RSM who will speak on what our organization does.

Join us for an informative afternoon of presentations, so that we may strengthen international solidarity for our global comrades.

Facebook Event Page

Midterm Questions

[Sorry these are late… I have been having computer problems.]

Together, you will collectively produce a document (using Google Docs) in response to one of the following three prompts. It will be only at the time of the midterm itself that you will be given the specific prompt that you have to answer, but it will be one of these three:

  1. What is a revolution? And why might we (anybody) want one?
  2. What are the main obstacles to revolution, or dangers inherent in trying to organize one?
  3. How have revolutions been represented or depicted, and how should they be portrayed?

In each case, please respond with specific reference to the full range of texts we have read and discussed in class.

Ensure also that the document you produce is well-structured, organized, and coherent. It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and a coherent thesis, which may (and probably should) of course be broken down into discrete but complementary elements.

It is up to you to figure out how to organize yourselves and assign responsibilities and roles to tackle this task. The result will be viewed and assessed as a collective project, and if it is judged unsatisfactory, then everyone will be involved in rewriting and revising (and/or redoing) it until it is satisfactory.

Though I am giving no hard guidelines on length, I am expecting a substantial document. I think you should probably aim for ten pages (double spaced).

In the midterm itself, you are allowed to use whatever resources you deem necessary: books, notes, the Internet, whatever. You are free (indeed, encouraged) to talk to each other as you work together.

Blueprint for Revolution

Blueprint for Revolution

Srdja Popovic was a leader of the Serbian youth movement Otpor!, which organized non-violent opposition to President Slobodan Milošević in the late 1990s. Otpor! was, by all accounts (not least Popovic’s own), remarkably successful: less than two years after the group was formed, and in the wake of the Kosovo war and NATO airstrikes, Milošević was overthrown amid mass demonstrations and at the cost of surprisingly few casualties. After a brief foray into parliamentary politics, Popovic helped to found the Belgrade-based Centre for Applied Non Violent Actions and Strategies, a kind of consultancy for non-violent activism that has advised activists from Egypt, Venezuela, Syria, the Maldives, and elsewhere. Now, with Blueprint for Revolution, he offers us all the lessons he’s drawn from a decade and a half of global protest, from Burma to Yemen, Occupy to the Arab Spring. For as he repeatedly tells us, the principles he proposes “are universal, and they apply no matter who you are and what your problems may be” (244). You, too, he insists, can overthrow a dictatorship and even (or “simply,” as the book’s subtitle has it) change the world.

The book is presented, then, very much as a popular and practical guide. Popovic makes no pretence to be a deep thinker or theorist, and his style is resolutely jocular, sometimes gratingly so. His stress is as much on style as on substance: the very first step for a would-be revolutionary, he tells us, is to come up with a decent logo; as he says of Otpor!, “branding was important to us” (7). And branding is important because protest has to be presented as “cool,” even “sexy.” Popovic reports that Otpor! was so successful at crafting a hip image for revolt that their “little demonstrations became the hottest parties in town” (10). So in line with this dictum, Popovic’s own style (and let’s pass over the presence of a ghost writer, Matthew Miller) is all about being down with the kids. Almost embarrassingly so, though he saves himself by recognizing that at his age he’s probably not as cool as he once was, and by self-deprecatingly acknowledging that ultimately he was never really all that cool anyway. After all, as he repeatedly tells us, he’s a huge fan of Lord of the Rings. So the key is to be hip, but not too hip. Because you don’t want to scare people away. You need to appeal to the broadest cross-section of society possible.

For Popovic is unabashedly populist. And though he doesn’t use the term (which might smack too much of alienating theoreticism), he provides perhaps the best practical definition of populism I have seen:

Take a piece of paper–even a napkin can do the job–and draw a line. Mark yourself on one side of it, and then try to think who could stand together with you. If the answer is just a few people, start over–no matter how committed you are to a cause, or how troubled you are by a problem–and try again. When you’ve managed to place yourself and your friends and just about the rest of the world on one side of the line and a handful of evil bastards on the other, you’ve won. (52)

What this means is the specifics are almost always beside the point. Who cares what the issue is, so long as you can draw that line, construct a “people” in opposition to an evil elite? It might (as in the examples he provides) be a rallying call for cheaper salt (Gandhi) or less dog shit on the streets (Harvey Milk). But then what if the cause that unites people on your side of the line is opposition to immigrants or (Heaven help us) a crackdown on separatism in a breakaway republic? As with all populists, Popovic has little if any means to distinguish between different forms of populism; he’d be at a loss, for instance, if he had to justify supporting Sanders over Trump.

To put this another way: this is a book that’s for revolution, but against politics, “because politics is boring, and we wanted everything to be fun” (11). And in the end, in part because of this, it’s not clear how very revolutionary it is, either. Popovic tells us that a successful movement for social change has to have a vision, because “it’s never enough just to throw a party” (67). But it turns out that the vision that Otpor! had for Serbia was more backward-looking than progressive: “We just wanted a normal country with cool music. That’s it. We wanted a Serbia that was open to the world, as it had been under Tito” (70). For under Tito, Yugoslavia’s official record label had provided young Yugoslavs a steady diet of “the Beatles, David Bowie, Kraftwerk, Whitesnake, and Deep Purple. Growing up in the 1980s, my friends and I barely felt the yoke of dictatorship, busy as we were with great music from around the world” (69). Indeed, if there’s anything revolutionary in Popovic’s proposals, it is a revolution against politics. It’s a call for more bread and (especially) more circuses, more Heavy Metal. It’s a plea for the return of hegemony, or at least its simulacrum, as nostalgically remembered in an idealized childhood homeland that no longer exists.

Reflections and Lesson Plan for Week 7

Lesson Plan:

Che Presentation Notes:

Debate: Is Revolutionary justice (i.e. executions) justifiable for a means to an end?

  • Explain the “revolutionary code”
  • Talk about machismo in death (execution scene)

Compare and contrast Cuba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ekfej_kmHQ (Che’s U.N. Speech)

http://writing.upenn.edu/library/Marti_Jose_Our-America.html (Jose Martí’s “Our America”)

 

Questions:

  1. How does American Imperialism drive revolutions?
    1. What is imperialism
  2. Does one ever stop being a guerilla soldier?
  3. What is the difference between a national liberation struggle and a “revolution”?
  4. What is the role of women in the Cuban Revolution?
  5. Why does Che believe that armed struggle is preferential to urban warfare/sabotage?
  6. What is the importance of national figures such as Jose Martí in revolutions?
    1. Not a socialist but how is he still represented as a hero by the Cuban revolution?
  7. What is the pretext of the revolution
    1. Batista Regime
    2. Cuban Independence (mestizo population defeating a “white” population
  8. Is there another alternative to “violent” revolution that can bring about lasting change?
  9. Why is land always so central to a revolutionary struggle?

Reflections:

George: I think we can say we had a fun, engaging, and educational debate! Is revolutionary justice (in this case through means of executions) justifiable and a means to an end? Both sides made great points. On the one side, it is a form of discipline and deterrence, and yes, one could argue the most efficient and productive way (rather than using resources on a prisoner). Also, all revolutions, I think, are also based on this notion of bringing justice; however, what justice entails may be different for every individual or country. Some base it on land reforms, others on a draconian government. The point is, revolutions are founded by this guiding principle of bring justice. So therefore one could take the side of pro revolutionary justice. On the other side however, killing people does not, as Aja mentioned, solve the root problem. And as Thomas also mentioned in his blog, it goes against Che’s goal of bringing peace. How can he be fighting for change and peace when he is at the same time condoning punishment, violence, and executions, which arguably only make the situation worse? Based on this paradox, one could also ask the question, can there even be revolutionary justice in a revolution? Or simply, is there ever truly justice in a revolution? Both terms, justice and revolution, are in contrast to one another, so I don’t know whether such a thing can even exist. Also, I think using terms such as revolution and justice are very subjective, and whatever one says really depends on how they are affected and see it in relation to their life or others. Therefore, in the end I must say both sides won. Each side looked at the revolution and justice in a particular way and addressed them very well.

Dacyn: I really enjoyed leading the class this week and feel that we were able to really create meaningful discussion from the debate that took place. I am very thankful for George for suggesting that we do a debate in the first place. I was a little hesitant about it because I wasn’t sure if people were actually going to participate but the response seemed very positive and people seemed to really have fun with it! I though both sides conveyed some very good points and again I have a bias already to one side so it would be unfair of me to declare one side a winner. Overall I think both sides made compelling arguments that at the very least made the team think of logical responses, which was our goal with having the debate in the first place. I also enjoyed the passion that was elicited from the class, something that seems to be occurring more frequently now that we are all getting more comfortable with each other in the classroom. I wished that we could have showed the clip of the real Che speaking at the United Nations (and I encourage those with free time to do so because it really is captivating) because it shows how passionate, intelligent and rational Guevara was. His charismatic speaking style was something that was marveled at by many and was worthy of us taking a look at. All in all I feel that this week went very well and I am happy with the discussion and debate that was stimulated from our lesson.

Week 8: The Bolivian Diary, Historical Context and Death

This week we were tasked with reading The Bolivian Diary, by Che Guevara. This was Che’s last text that he wrote, and while a bit boring and dry at parts, I feel is one of his most important works. When we analyze the diary itself, it seems rather unimportant. A large part of the book Che is simply describing the harsh attributes that a guerilla fighter faced. Often times entries were short and uneventful. But this text’s purpose has somewhat transcended simply being another book by Che. In my eyes the text serves as an account of the final thoughts and ideas of one of the most influential revolutionaries of the 20th century.

I can understand however why some may find this text boring and unimportant. To truely do this book justice, the reader needs to have some knowledge of the socioeconmic conditions surrounding Bolivia at the time, and why Che attempted revolution there. At the time, the president of Boliva, René Barrientos came to power after the overthrowing of the liberal government of Paz Estenssoro. The laissez-faire economic model was introduced and many industries were directly impacted in a detremental way. Miners were especially angry with the new goverment and their protests were met with violent resistance from police, often resulting in the deaths of miners. Most notably the catalyst and pretext for revolutionary activity was the Catavi Massacre of 1942. The miners of the Catavi and Siglo XX mines demanded a 100% increase in wages. The response of the Bolivian government was to send troops to the mines and open fire for six hours. Now I understand this is a bit of an aside, and not exactly related to The Bolivian Diary but I feel that this background information is important because it explains the reasons as to why Che decided on Bolivia as his next latin american country for which he would instigate armed struggle.

What I find so interesting about Che’s time in Bolivia is how ripe Bolivia was for revolution, yet Che ultimately made some initial choices that set himself up for failure. The movement of the intial guerilla camp seems baffling to me, as he moved from an area that was projected to be friendly and sympathetic to the Guerilla cause (the countryside around the Siglo XX mine) to another area which may have be detrimental to the Guerilla movements.

The true significance of this text lies in the legacy that it builds around Che Guevara. To me Che is an inspiration because even in the face of defeat Che never once falters in his beliefs and ideology. Even in death, his final words are repeated and remebered all over the world: “Shoot coward, you are only going to kill a man”.