There are only two political actions someone can take in the world. You can vote for your
preferred candidate, and if that fails and you don’t like the actions of the incumbents, you can protest.
That’s it. There’s nothing else you can do. At least, that’s the mood everyone seems to be in.
It’s not unjustified. Media seems to be focused on these actions in entirety. Peaceful
demonstration is revered as the people exercising their fundamental rights. Voting is the ultimate
expression of the people’s will. Things aren’t changing in favour of the worker, but these two forms
persist as the only valid actions you can take. This is a blockade in the way of real political change,
whether or not the insistence upon these forms was intentionally created.
Protest is not inherently ineffective. Protesting has been the catalyst for political change across
the globe. However, in the west it has become sanitized to a completely unrecognizable degree. Gone
are the days of mass movements that disrupt and destabilize. The only acceptable form of protest is one
that doesn’t bother anybody, takes place in areas society has designated as soapboxes, and largely
dissipates after a short time. This is a far cry from what truly makes protest effective. The action has
become a pastiche, a theatrical recreation of what we’re told protesting is without an understanding of
the actions behind the scenes. All we’re left with is signs with cynical slogans and a desire to return to
an imagined status-quo.
Take, for instance, the most recent No Kings protests in our fascist neighbour to the south.
These mass mobilizations had millions of Americans take to the streets to voice their dissatisfaction
with the regime. The efficacy of these events is in question, however. While there is an obvious
tangible benefit to gatherings like this, in that they bring people with common beliefs into the same
area where they theoretically could make connections, the events themselves are fleeting and
disorganized in the worst ways.
I distinctly remember a video of the protest dispersing in New York City at the exact designated
time it was meant to end. This is on its face a deeply organized action, one that requires a lot of
discipline to carry out. However, it’s also completely neutering to any momentum that the protest was
building up. All of that energy was used up in an allotted time frame, everybody went home and the
fascists went back to business as usual. That specific event was praised by the NYPD for being law
abiding and that they had made no arrests. There should be a questioning among the left-minded of
society about how effective a protest could be if it’s being praised by the armed instruments of the
state.
Beyond that however, an event that only lasts a few hours and ends with the participants going
about their day is simply built to fail as an agent of political change. The protests were organized by
groups with deep connections to the Democratic party, not by community organizations synthesizing
their work and their forged bonds to show resistance in the face of fascist domination. Many of the
people who showed up probably did just because they saw that there was a Protest on and everyone is
meeting up at The Location to show the government how displeased they were. Only so much can
happen at an event where you might not know a lot of people, you’re only there for an hour or two, the
tangible goals of the protest don’t exist and you probably have stuff to do right after it ends. Those you
target with your protest will just wait it out.
Effective actions are ones with purpose, ones where there is a clear target. I don’t mean a noun
target necessarily, like the generic The Government. But a target which the movement sets to change or
end. A good thing to really laser in on with the No Kings protest would have been the proliferation of
Trump’s SS, ICE. This is a deeply unpopular, violent organization which threatens the fabric of
communities across the entire country. They could have demanded the abolition of the agency. It would
make for a very easy target of derision and focuses the efforts of the masses to one point. It unites
communities against a shared threat. If two people are digging a hole and one is starting a fire, and five
people are holding back a massive boulder from tumbling downhill and crushing everybody, would it
not be prudent for the three people screwing around to focus on the boulder problem? Maybe they
could even push that boulder off the other side of that hill and get back to the busywork.
Unfortunately that isn’t what happened. The intent was very unfocused, only being generically
anti-regime with no clear demands. Just that there shouldn’t be kings in America, which isn’t going to
affect the people trying to install a fascist dictatorship because they evidently don’t care. In the seas of
millions of people at No Kings, there were signs ranging from socialist banners and anti-ICE slogans to
“If Kamala won we’d all be at BRUNCH right now!”. While it can be a good thing to have these
people in a place where they can speak to each other, the origin of their proximity is ramshackle and
frighteningly temporary. What is the likelihood of all these camps ever meeting in day-to-day life?
Realistically pretty low right?
I do not place blame on literally any of the participants of the No Kings protests for it’s
inefficacy. It is not at all their fault, and is largely made up of people doing their best in uncertain and
petrifying times. However, without building your community up through human connections even a
target might not make for an effective protest. It is essential that mass organization like this comes from
the bottom up, and not from the top down.
In my time as a member organizing with a local tenant union, I have seen the benefits of
organizing people on small scale issues. Ones that affect your immediate community directly. The
landlord isn’t fixing our apartments? Well let’s get up there and demand they fix them. Let’s stage a
protest, let’s have a barbecue, let’s sit in on the management office. Through these small scale
struggles, unity is built. Through this unity in both communal gatherings and going on the offensive,
there is a unity in defending what we’ve collectively earned. This is organic, and originates from a
common struggle brought about by in-community organization.
In my buildings, we have had many problems with mold, pests, and repair work being ignored.
Through organizing a tenant union, we have won many things that we lacked previously. Renovations
are happening in the common areas, and many of the windows are being repaired so mold doesn’t grow
as easily on them. Is this everything we are fighting for? NO! Of course not! However even these small
victories give tenants hope. They catalyze people who previously might not have been politically
engaged. They widen the common view of politics as not just being voting and elections, but as the
mass movements of a people united. Movements that can make things better for people today, and not
next election cycle. And while we employed protest as one method of change, we also mass delivered
letters, got the press involved, and brought eyes to our neighbourhood that previously were comfortable
passively ignoring our struggles. When the landlord tried to squeeze more money out of us by illegally
charging us for repairs and appliance replacements, we didn’t pay. This threatened their revenue, but
also threatened the status-quo that allowed them to believe they could get away with such a thing.
The integral piece to a successful protest is a threat to the status-quo, a tangible effect on the
target. This is what is most often missing from modern organizing. While a protest outside of Queens
Park is visual, that’s all it is. Within its walls the elected officials peer out the windows and just wait
out the storm. Are they annoyed by the noise? Are they affected by the visuals of hundreds, or even
thousands saying they’re doing a bad job? Maybe, but more often than not the protest comes to an end
and they go about doing what they wanted to do anyways.
Someone might read this and think “Well, they might get voted out! That’s a threat to their
employment if voters are displeased.” This is an interesting point. I would point, however, to the fact
that there have been many protests outside of Queens Park under Doug Ford’s government. This did
not stop the closures of safe injection sites, it didn’t contain class sizes, and it didn’t cause his
government to lose a single one of the three elections they’ve taken part in. The threat of
unemployment is simply not a potent enough one to dislodge governments from their entrenched
ideological positions.
Paradoxically, It seems as though every form of protest is not the way forward. Protests that
blockade railways are shunned, ones that stop traffic derided, and ones that show open contempt for
political leadership are viewed as crossing a line. The only one that is alright for you to do is one that
doesn’t inconvenience anybody, where you stand outside a building at a reasonable time (don’t get in
anybody’s way though) with signs and megaphones, chanting about your grievances. And be sure to not
insult anybody!
This attitude is perhaps reflective of a fear of confrontation and disobeying the law. This is a
completely understandable belief. The Law is a powerful tool that can be used in many different ways,
either to benefit or harm the working class. I’m sure everybody reading has a law or two they believe is
unjust. One that they believe society would be better off getting rid of, or ignoring entirely. I ask them,
should we not stand up for what we believe? In the face of unjust laws, should the people not rise and
say that “we’re not gonna take it”? When we view the events in the United States, where under the
guise of Law and Order a fascist power rules with roaming masked gangs who kidnap people at
random, should we not stand against such injustice? Governments should not have unilateral control
over the Law, it should rise from the collective will of the people. So when the government, one that
treats its citizens poorly like the Conservative government does in Ontario, tells you that you shouldn’t
protest in a way they personally dislike, the reaction must be defiance.
I am not advocating for a necessity of violence, but what is the violence in marching down the
middle of a road? Occupying an office to disrupt the activities of government, or a scummy landlord?
These actions do not harm people directly. Are they annoying? Yes. Do they hamper people’s abilities
to get things done? Yes. That is precisely the point of a protest, that’s the very thing that makes them
effective agents of change. When a workers union brings its workplace to a halt, they threaten the
money making capabilities of the ownership. Would we call this violence? The poor, the working class,
they can face mistreatment every day. But when the ones committing that mistreatment are even mildly
inconvenienced, it’s a great social ill. Where is the empathy for the workers? Where is the empathy for
tenants facing eviction? Where is the empathy for the disenfranchised of our nation, and every nation
around the globe? It seems as though the concerns about how “correct” a protest is only applies when it
negatively affects the targets. However there is a distinct lack of concern when the police descend on
peaceful protests.
“Well, they should try voting!”, you might hear from someone. It’s a common refrain, based on
the belief that the poor just don’t vote. It’s another essential building block in the walls that keep us
trapped between the two expressions. You should vote. I have. Well then you should protest. I have also
done that. Well that should get more people to vote.
On voting, it is not the endpoint of political expression. A vote can be powerful, but your
individual vote is one in a sea of thousands. It can be part of a tide shift, but cannot in itself affect that
shift. You should vote, it takes moments to do and is one of many ways you can express yourself
politically. In our current system it affects who is in charge of lawmaking, and everybody should have a
say in that. However it is not at all the only thing you can do.
The great lie told to us is that people who don’t vote are just lazy and don’t care. This simply
isn’t true. Many who don’t vote are the ones who are most disenfranchised by the political
establishment. In my neighbourhood people don’t vote because things simply don’t get better for them.
They’re still desperate for good work, good pay, to keep a roof over their heads and food in their
mouths. And no matter who is in power or how many times they vote these four needs are not met. It is
not a lack of convictions or interest that keeps these people from the polls, it’s a systemic failing. One
that keeps them down no matter the brand of the party in power.
Telling these disenfranchised people to go vote, or else they can’t complain is not the way
forward. We also cannot insist on our own ideas being the correct ones that are guaranteed will make
their lives better. We must approach with compassion. To mobilize our communities, it’s necessary to
turn to things that affect them on a day-to-day basis. To look for things we can do to help them now. We
must look to the past. We must take inspiration from community groups who built mutual aid
organizations to feed their neighbourhoods, Those who brought their workplaces to a halt so we could
enjoy the benefits of a five day workweek, those who defied the morality of the ruling class to win
dignity and decency in the face of unimaginable odds.
And it’s not just fighting injustices that can be political. Politics can be as simple as having a
community gather for food. All those people in the same place are bound to have similar fears and
problems, but also similar interests and ideas. These exchanges promote the idea of a shared struggle,
one which all humans face, and remind us that we’re not alone. Through these struggles we forge
communal bonds that are strong and unbreakable. Our neighbourhoods can inspire pride, a sense of
belonging and a sense of family. One where everyone looks out for each other and we all have fond
memories of our experiences together. So if a fascist comes knocking and tries to tear apart our
victories, or take away our friends and family, it’s a threat to the entire community. Friends come to the
help of friends, neighbours defend neighbours.
As these small struggles continue, smaller groups find things in common with other small
groups, making a big bloc of shared interests. This happens again and again until you end up with a
huge, interconnected web which has sprung up organically and supports each other in their respective
fights. Labour supporting Tenants, Tenants supporting Labour and things of that nature.
In the face of deepening apathy it is beyond necessary that we are educated about the different
avenues of political change, to not box ourselves in based on what we’re told is acceptable and to
imagine new ways forward. We must look at our previous successes and build from them. We have to
help each other right now, not only at election time or during a contained protest. Our advocacy, our
actions must be a constant effort, whether big or small. Put in what you can on a daily, weekly or
monthly basis. Keep your immediate community in mind, fight for each other and be compassionate to
the less fortunate. Don’t limit yourself based on the words of those who stand to benefit from
discouraging you. Only then can we win a better world for the benefit of all humanity.