Organizing in a Fascist Canada with the Atlantic Regional Communists
The Atlantic Regional Communists return to Blueprints to talk about their growth as political organization, and share some of the methodology that unpins their work. They obviously take some of their cues from Marx, but also from the Black Panthers.
"We're here to learn from people. We're here to serve people. And we're here to help people organize towards a revolution." - Comrade M
One of the things they think sets them apart from other political groups, is the work they do in their communities, and how that work continuously shapes their own organization.
A large part of what they do is also centred around building knowledge. To that end, Comrades M and E give us a quick study on how fascism presents itself here in Canada.
They cover class collaboration, the labour aristocracy and the different phases of fascism that co-exist with our so-called democratic state.
Seeing our typical relationship with the state as being one of "fascist minutemen" - helping to legitimize its domination - their take on 'reforming' the federal NDP, and electoral politics in general, is to be expected.
It also builds on our first discussion with ARC, where they went into more about how they've structured themselves, and why.
Hosted by: Jessa McLean. Produced by: Santiago Helou Quintero
Related Episodes:
- Reimagining Politics and Demystifying Communism (Jan 2025) Our first discussion with the Atlantic Regional Communists;
- Canada's Colonialist Imagination (Oct 2023) Professor Tyler Shipley talks about the mindset that aided genocide in Canada and continues to shape politics here.
More Resources:
- Fascism: A Scientific Definition - Atlantic Regional Communists
- Guest Suggested Reading: “A Rethinking of Everything Altogether” – The Red Clarion
Head to our SUBSTACK for more content, including articles and other resources for activists and organizers.
All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: Patreon
Transcript
Greetings, friends. My name is Jess McLean, and I'm here to provide you with some blueprints
Speaker:of disruption. This weekly podcast is dedicated to amplifying the work of activists, examining
Speaker:power structures, and sharing the success stories from the grassroots. Through these discussions,
Speaker:we hope to provide folks with the tools and the inspiration they need to start to dismantle
Speaker:capitalism, decolonize our spaces, and bring about the political revolution that we know
Speaker:we need. Welcome. back, another repeating guest today. Welcome back, Ark. Can you introduce
Speaker:yourself to the audience? Hi, I'm E. I use she, pronouns and I am a communist labor organizer.
Speaker:And yeah, that's pretty much it. And I'm M. I use he, him pronouns. And I am also a communist.
Speaker:And you're both I called you Ark. That stands for the Atlantic Regional Communists. Is that
Speaker:still the name you're using? It is, yes. All right. So for folks who weren't around a year
Speaker:ago or missed the episode, these folks were on to talk about their organization. It was
Speaker:in its infancy stages and maybe, maybe still is. We're going to get a kind of idea of where
Speaker:they're at after a year and some of the things that they've been up to. But if I had to describe
Speaker:our discussion, it was how they were creating a, and I use like scare quotes, political
Speaker:party, because that's not as clear as it can be, but a political party that was really the
Speaker:anti-thesis of what they had already experienced in Canadian politics. So there was a range
Speaker:of experiences there from anarchists to the NDP, the Greens and whatnot, and they had
Speaker:come up with this. So Atlantic Regional Communists. What has the last year been like organizing
Speaker:out East as communists? If you had to give a year in review since we last talked to you.
Speaker:mean, I'm going to try and remember all the different things we've done in the last year.
Speaker:uh So generally we view it as a success for the kind of immediate goals that Ark is is
Speaker:trying to accomplish. Those goals would be to uh form relationships with other organizations
Speaker:in the area to uh study existing conditions in a way that is number one correct and
Speaker:number two to be able to explain those things to other organizations and get their input
Speaker:to be able to come to a very accurate picture of what is actually going on uh rather than
Speaker:just rely on uh you know, an analysis from, you know, a hundred years ago and just, and
Speaker:just dogmatically say, oh, well, this is it. And on the other hand, not rely on like a
Speaker:more liberal kind of, well, all we need to do is just raise wages kind of thing. So to
Speaker:that end, we, we've done things like hold open educationals for people. We've worked
Speaker:with other organizations. supporting different actions that they do, writing pieces together
Speaker:uh and distributing things, distributing educational materials to people. uh We have also worked
Speaker:through various aspects of organizing theory with other groups, both to critique our own
Speaker:methods of organizing while also sharing things that are not necessarily in the organizing
Speaker:zeitgeist. Um, so one, one big thing is democratic centralism, which Marxist orgs should be
Speaker:using a communist organization should be using democratic centralism. So we share this with
Speaker:people because you don't need to be a communist to use democratic centralism. It is a very
Speaker:powerful organizational tool and one that we talk to a variety of organizations. We've
Speaker:talked to anarchists about it. Um, we've talked to, uh, Palestinian organizations. We've talked
Speaker:to. liberal organizations, we've talked to student organizations and we push this to
Speaker:give people an alternative. So that's one of the major things we try and do. Recently,
Speaker:we've also been supporting different actions occasionally by uh creating food and delivering
Speaker:supplies to strikes, for example. I'm E. Do you have anything to add in on what we've done
Speaker:in the last year? Not a ton. I mean, we've helped with particular campaigns. Most of our members
Speaker:are in the Halifax Regional Municipality. So uh some labor campaigns. There's been a lot
Speaker:of action happening at the universities, especially in our neck of the woods. So an averted strike
Speaker:with QP3912, which represents TAs and part-time academics at Dalhousie and many other universities.
Speaker:But we had some members helping out with that. the student strike that was recently had
Speaker:at the university. We came in and helped them with their organizing efforts a bit late in
Speaker:the game to try and help them develop strategies and techniques and organizing methods for
Speaker:next year if they so choose to continue on next year and continue organizing. We've been
Speaker:doing a lot of internal and external educational work, which I know we're talking about the
Speaker:fascism document today, but we've been on a real uh run, I guess you could say, of literature
Speaker:writing and theory writing and collaborating with other orgs as M said, but also uh coordinating
Speaker:and synthesizing a lot of different texts into single easier to read documents for people.
Speaker:uh As we know, a lot of Marxist literature is very dense, understandably so, uh but a lot
Speaker:of our work has been making them easier to understand. uh in an introductory fashion,
Speaker:both for people outside of and for people who are new to Arc. em And we've grown significantly
Speaker:since then. I think we've almost doubled in size since the last we spoke, which has been
Speaker:great. Yeah, I said I would ask you about growth, but if you notice, you know, I put it in in
Speaker:quotes there because that can be seen as different ways. So I'm assuming you mean in membership,
Speaker:but also capacity. Yes. I sorry, I would say yes to both. Definitely. Our capacity is still
Speaker:uh always defined by the size of the membership and especially the willingness of members
Speaker:to engage in the political struggle, which can come in a variety of fashions, food making,
Speaker:educationals, or simply attending meetings and making sure that things are running smoothly.
Speaker:And our capacity has greatly increased since then. It's still not, ah you know, we're not
Speaker:in the thousands of people here, but it's much. much uh easier to do larger activities and
Speaker:larger engagements than it once was a year ago. I'd like to add in, if I can, that not just
Speaker:the capacity of the members, the org itself, but the capacity through the relationships
Speaker:we've built with other organizations, where now there are people who come to us and
Speaker:say, hey, there's this thing. I would like your opinion on it. or they would bring us
Speaker:into something they want to do. also additionally, we've had more and more people that we haven't
Speaker:been, we don't have relationships with yet uh come up to us at a rally or at an action
Speaker:or whatever and say, hey, I know you guys, your arc, your this, that. um so that capacity,
Speaker:I guess, the relational capacity has grown quite a bit since last year. Yeah, your total imprint.
Speaker:I'm wondering if there's also been any growth or shift in ideology. One of the things I keep
Speaker:mentioning to you in the interview last time was like, you're the least rigid Marxist
Speaker:I've ever met, right? You spoke about it briefly, even already now, where it's not uh an adherence
Speaker:to any kind of document, right? To the manifesto or whatnot. but there was fluidity. Have you
Speaker:learned anything from the relationships that you've built over the last year and putting
Speaker:into practice the things like accountability? Have there been any changes there or any growth?
Speaker:I can speak a little bit to this. Our ideological convictions is much the same, is, at least,
Speaker:you can correct me if you'd... this language is off kilter, but I always say like Marxist-Leninist
Speaker:without further adjectives. Like we take from Marx, we take from Lenin, we take from Stalin,
Speaker:Mao, Black Panthers, anyone who has any someone's of a Marxist bone in their body, we take from
Speaker:them, along with like non-Marxist too, especially in the decolonial sphere, who have much knowledge
Speaker:to share that we must learn from. But what I would say is I don't think there's been a
Speaker:shift in ideology, but there's definitely been a deepening of our understanding of not just
Speaker:the theoretical foundations which underpin our work, but the practical foundations that undergrid
Speaker:our work. our work in how to construct organizations, how to organize people in a structured fashion
Speaker:has deepened. Our understanding of pedagogy has deepened. Like at every single level that
Speaker:we've been doing these educational works for ourselves and these writings for ourselves
Speaker:internally, it has not been for nothing. It has deepened our philosophical and political
Speaker:and practical understandings of the work ahead. What's more, it's been easier to identify
Speaker:groups that we should work with or should not work with, especially, which has been sometimes
Speaker:a harder lesson to learn. But sometimes people who claim to be progressive or not necessarily
Speaker:as progressive as they put on the the 10 and our commitment and our deepening analysis
Speaker:and our deepening commitments to the decolonial struggle has only formented uh greater solidarity
Speaker:with the progressive organizations that do exist within our organizing spaces and as such
Speaker:has had a great influence on us as well as we influence them in turn. Our work with the various
Speaker:mobilization and organizing efforts of various organizations and unions, I would say has had
Speaker:a tremendous impact on our membership's ability to coordinate and self-organize, which has
Speaker:been a huge, huge boon to see as well. I don't know if you want to say anything further on
Speaker:that. Go ahead, please. I don't, actually. I think that was great. You mentioned learning
Speaker:lessons, um particularly when it comes to faux progressives. it's that a lot without, you
Speaker:know, naming or shaming or you can, can you share those lessons? Like what maybe the red
Speaker:line was that would cause you to not work with an organization who is declaring themselves
Speaker:as progressive. So, I mean, we all have reasons not to work with open Nazis and stuff like
Speaker:that. But quite often organizations who are trying to accomplish certain things, usually
Speaker:single issue things, but Nonetheless, the NDP does this, you know, try to widen the umbrella
Speaker:and work with as many people as possible, sometimes to the detriment. So what is it
Speaker:that, you know, would cause ARC to not work with an organization where the differences
Speaker:were just counterproductive? Well, I'll say sort of twofold. Number one is those who
Speaker:aim to profit, both either literally in the economic sense or politically, uh from the
Speaker:organizing for them and themselves, rather than for the good of the organizing itself.
Speaker:So we've interacted with organizations that have a tendency towards not uh picking up
Speaker:a shovel, so to speak, to actually help in the organizing work, and instead to simply lecture
Speaker:people on how they should be doing better. And the difference with us, for instance, is like,
Speaker:while we are in rooms with people that we have different political tendencies with, we will
Speaker:always advocate for our position, but we will also make sure that it is always in support
Speaker:of the organizing getting done, that the work has to get done. And so some organizations
Speaker:who have sort of progressive aims or may publish very progressive pieces or what have you,
Speaker:but in their practical organizing capacity end up being more of a detriment. And even among
Speaker:people that we are organizing, people are immediately put off by them, by these types of organizations,
Speaker:because they do not help, because they do not seek to actually improve the organizing as
Speaker:a whole. They seek to advance their own organization period. uh while we obviously want to advance
Speaker:our organization as well, We do so by demonstrating the efficacy of our organizing, by helping
Speaker:them to organize and offer critiques and suggestions, not by uh what a Marxist term might be, commandism,
Speaker:commanding them to do X, Y, and Z and shaming them if they don't. Because the only way that
Speaker:people are going to learn and develop is by learning and developing, by doing the political
Speaker:struggle and learning what works and what doesn't work, not being lectured at Nausium about.
Speaker:their failings and also by people who don't actually do the organizing work. It's a very
Speaker:frustrating experience. don't know if, M, you want to speak any further to that or other
Speaker:examples, but that's the one that comes to my mind most especially. ah Yeah, we have, uh
Speaker:I guess, kind of a current standing order to always, when we're at actions or events or
Speaker:whatever, to be the communist in the room. E is very fond of saying that phrase. be the
Speaker:communist in the room. So that means, number one, that you're not being commandist. There's
Speaker:a certain level of humility that's expected of ARC members to know uh that we are not
Speaker:the be all and end all. We're here to learn from people. We're here to serve people. And
Speaker:we're here to help people organize toward revolution. And that does actually take a fair amount
Speaker:of humility to not believe you're the main character. um And settlers are very, very often settlers
Speaker:will believe that. that's one thing. It's unfortunately because so many organizations
Speaker:are full of settlers and because there's a tendency for settlers not to self-critique
Speaker:um that this means they don't look at themselves, you know, whereas Arc, uh we're an organization
Speaker:that's full of settlers and we demand of our members to look at ourselves, to see where
Speaker:our failings are and to work to overcome them, to actually be helpful in the long-term fight
Speaker:that uh is going on right now. And so unfortunately, there are many organizations that like to
Speaker:build brands. which is not the same thing as trying to build your organization. They
Speaker:want to build a brand and usually they end up going through a number of members, like they
Speaker:have high turnover rates or I mean, I know for a fact, several NDP EDAs do this kind
Speaker:of thing um where there's a lot of not doing stuff, except maybe phone banking. There are
Speaker:Marxist orgs who do this. There are anarchist orgs who do this, though anarchists by and
Speaker:large, generally, I find much more likely to actually do work than Marxist orgs. you
Speaker:know, Marxist orgs who like to just sit and post on social media, you know, get your asses
Speaker:together and get in gear. You know what I mean? I think we spent a little bit of time last
Speaker:time. talking about some of the pitfalls uh of other groups that people might have experienced.
Speaker:Because I think like in the end we called the episode, part of it was demystifying communism,
Speaker:but it was also just kind of trying to assuage people that not all groups are the same, that
Speaker:there were spheres of organizing that you could be in or create that used the ideology that
Speaker:helps make capitalism make sense and how we dismantle it, um but leaves room for growth
Speaker:ah and accountability, something that, yeah, we talked at length that a lot of circles
Speaker:are lacking, particularly in electoral politics. um You forwarded me your study on fascism,
Speaker:and so we're going to kind of pivot into that discussion and share some of the knowledge
Speaker:that you folks um grew with a wider audience, hopefully, than it's already been exposed to.
Speaker:We'll do some learning. But I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you about what it's like kind
Speaker:of growing this alternate view during this NDP leadership race, because we lamented as
Speaker:well as how a lot of people had to kind of go through that process. participating in electoral
Speaker:politics is simply really just choosing which member of the capitalist class would um make
Speaker:some administrative decisions for the time being. And so for me, kind of going through that,
Speaker:was the hope that I was reading and gleaning from people's posts and discussions about the
Speaker:change in regime at the NDP actually just made me feel depressed. ah I felt like a lot of
Speaker:folks who had learned the lessons that you had that we talked about of all of the limitations,
Speaker:let alone like the problems that exist that you could reform or not reform, but just the
Speaker:limitations of electoral politics when when you're talking about comrades that are anti-capitalists.
Speaker:Yeah, that was hard to see folks kind of wading back in there and likely spending a lot of
Speaker:their energy building up that brand, um probably to no end. uh So, you know, uh how did that
Speaker:feel for you folks who probably would like to have some growth in your ranks from people
Speaker:who have good intentions but are perhaps spinning their wheels elsewhere? I'll speak briefly
Speaker:to this and then I'll pass it off to Em. It's difficult to watch, but it's not unexpected
Speaker:either. It's not unexpected at all. Most historical struggles revolutionary struggles go through
Speaker:a period where people are definitely not ready for a revolution, capital R revolution, but
Speaker:they are thirsting for something different. They are thirsting for reforms by which that
Speaker:they think will be able to change their lives enough to improve their situation. That's
Speaker:what they're looking for in the interim. And while this is something that is overall ultimately
Speaker:we think a fool's errand because you cannot reform your way out of exploitation. You cannot
Speaker:reform your way out of settler colonialism. You cannot reform your way out of sexism, misogyny,
Speaker:transphobia, so on and so on and so forth. However, and Em may disagree with me on this, but historically
Speaker:what has happened is before the revolutionary struggle can begin in earnest or it can get
Speaker:to that point, there's a period where a socialist organization, socialist party takes center
Speaker:stage, but is advocating ultimately for reforms. And only by getting these people into a position
Speaker:of running the government, the states of affairs of the capitalist class, if you like, only
Speaker:by that can people understand the limits of reformism. So if we have a socialist advocating
Speaker:at NDP who is advocating for reformism, personally, I'm probably not going to vote for them, but
Speaker:it's like, I hope they ultimately win. Not because I want reforms to take place, but because I
Speaker:want people to see the limits of reformism. I want people to see all of the hopes and
Speaker:dreams that they put on the NDP and see them dashed as we know they will be for the simple
Speaker:reason that what people want is impossible by going through the electoral reform. uh, uh,
Speaker:the electoral stream specifically. If you are only seeking, uh, to go through electoral politics,
Speaker:all you will get are modest reforms and modest reforms that will be taken away at a moment's
Speaker:notice. Uh, it cannot, you know, cure what ails you, so to speak. But with our talk of
Speaker:fascism, uh, in our document, as we talk about multiple times, uh, fascism is already here.
Speaker:is a part of our fabric. It's a part of how Canada, quote unquote, functions. And even
Speaker:if we have a, what we might call a stable period of fascism where we have a social democratic
Speaker:leadership, as a socialist, quote unquote, leadership as heads of parliament, it does not mean
Speaker:that Canada is somehow not fascist or is somehow moving away from fascism because again, the
Speaker:capitalist class is never going to give up their power willingly. Settlers are never going
Speaker:to give up their power willingly. There is a necessity for more radical change, but that
Speaker:is only going to be demonstrated both through struggle and through people recognizing the
Speaker:limitations of the people that they elect. And I don't know if you want to speak more or counter
Speaker:me. Of course, you're always welcome to counter me. No, I thought that was really good. Yeah,
Speaker:I think also just to tie it back with with settlers again is like there's a reason that settlers
Speaker:who style themselves as progressives or as socialists don't break with electoral politics or often
Speaker:the tendency is to not break with them. It's because the settler state benefits, provides
Speaker:benefits for settlers. The structure of settler colonialism provides benefits for settlers.
Speaker:The tendency for settlers will be to cling on to those. And one of the best ways is to
Speaker:say, well, let's get some reforms. Let's get some reforms. want my property value to go
Speaker:up. I want this. I want that. A little bit more health care. It doesn't matter to settlers
Speaker:often if that comes at the expense of theft of indigenous land. It doesn't matter if it
Speaker:comes at the expense of hyper exploitation overseas. That's not, you can bring that up and I have
Speaker:two dippers and they don't like that. They don't like to consider it or they say, yes, I know
Speaker:that's really terrible. And then it just kind of like move on. Well, no, can't move on unless
Speaker:you're doing the sort of like a hypocritical, you're morally justifying your individual benefit
Speaker:from an oppressive state. ah while just like placating your sense of justice by saying,
Speaker:yes, of course I think that's bad. Canada should stop doing that. It's like, yeah, but you
Speaker:vote for the people who do it. So what are we doing here? Yeah, reading through the document
Speaker:you folks put together, one part that resonated as far as it relates to this is the class
Speaker:collaboration piece. And I know in it, you're doing it to refute. the myth that fascism
Speaker:destroys all forms of labor organizing. Again, you make the argument that it doesn't destroy
Speaker:it, it destroys its benefits, but it co-ops it in a way through class collaboration. And
Speaker:I know we're not talking about labor, but when it comes to the NDP and corralling folks into
Speaker:it, I feel like participating in reformist strategies like to this level. you know, where you're
Speaker:pouring energy into it, um, feels like class collaboration, which you call a critical component
Speaker:in establishing fascism. So there are comrades who have read through maybe not this document,
Speaker:but have this knowledge, uh, yet still not only participated, but encourage other folks
Speaker:to do that, to participate in class collaboration. Um, and yes. So I know this is not news to
Speaker:you folks at all and it's not news to the audience. This is more of me venting uh post convention,
Speaker:which some people are viewing as some sort of victory for the left. But E's explanation
Speaker:there uh much more sat with me and. And I feel bad for it, whereas I actually wished
Speaker:MacPherson would win. And a lot of comrades were going to be horrified to hear me say that.
Speaker:I might have said it a lot before, but only just because so they could see that it's fruitless.
Speaker:now they would more immediately see that it was fruitless. But now I feel there's at least
Speaker:a few years before they will come to any kind of conclusion of its limits there or, or maybe
Speaker:never. But ah I think knowing that fascism is here and reading through this piece will
Speaker:help folks navigate the current situation. Because even amongst progressives, we do see
Speaker:the arguments, we do see some of these myths that you debunk being perpetuated, particularly
Speaker:the fact that like we can't be in fascism at the moment because labor unions still exist.
Speaker:So maybe since I kind of started on myth three already brought it up, do you want to kind
Speaker:of elaborate on that? and we'll hit some other points on making the argument that
Speaker:fascism is in fact here not just any kind of fascism but stable fascism um you talk about
Speaker:stages of so let's get into that a little bit more um and the the class collaboration piece
Speaker:that i'm talking about because folks may have just heard an interview with qp organizers
Speaker:who are going into a new election to pick uh new leadership for QP Ontario, a massive, we're
Speaker:talking about like quarter, over a quarter of a million members here in Ontario, public sector
Speaker:members. And they too spoke about the labor aristocracy, how decisions are largely being
Speaker:made from top down and how that's been such a detriment to workers overall. So who wants
Speaker:to start talking about myth three in terms of debunking whether or not fascism is here or
Speaker:not. Yeah, first on the note of labor aristocracy. The labor aristocracy, this comes from Lenin's
Speaker:analysis of imperialism. And it refers to a group of workers whose their livelihoods
Speaker:are much more than the average worker. And usually back in Lenin's time, this would be
Speaker:the labor union bosses, et cetera. However, nowadays, the vast majority of workers in
Speaker:the Imperial Corps have a higher than the average wage globally. So there's a siphoning
Speaker:of value from the global South to the Imperial Corps. And it's given to workers, largely settlers,
Speaker:uh or in the case of Europe, they're not settlers. But here, certainly in Canada, it's given
Speaker:to settlers mostly. And this makes uh workers labor aristocrats, global labor aristocrats.
Speaker:So it's not just the labor union bosses anymore. And settlers cannot sort of put the blame
Speaker:or put the, oh, well, it's just these guys. Like, yeah, absolutely. The labor union bosses
Speaker:can be enemies, 100%. uh But let's not uh disregard that all these imperial super profits are
Speaker:paying your wages, are ensuring that commodity prices are low so you can get cheap bananas
Speaker:still somehow. uh Like the price of bananas has not changed. If you adjust for inflation,
Speaker:hasn't really changed that much in the last 50 or so years in Canada. And Canada doesn't
Speaker:grow bananas. So answer the question why that is, and you'll find that there's this benefit
Speaker:that workers here see because of imperialism. So then when we get to actual labor organizing,
Speaker:right now we could see uh that the Kearney liberals are drastically increasing the number of
Speaker:resource extraction projects, the number, not just the number of them, but the ability to
Speaker:start them. And of course, there are many unions that are going to be looking at, well,
Speaker:there are these great jobs, these great, good jobs for Canadians, right? um But that comes
Speaker:at the expense of Indigenous nations because Canada is stealing the land and extracting
Speaker:the resources. Like that, is an ongoing process. And so the Canadian state wants those unions
Speaker:to support these actions. Even if the union puts out a statement that says, Hey, you know,
Speaker:we want this to be like, you know, on the level. Um, but they're not organizing the workers
Speaker:to really say, we're going to stop this unless everything actually is on the level. We're
Speaker:going to stop this until we can dismantle colonialism. Unless you're doing that, then you are at
Speaker:least passively supporting the theft of indigenous land. that's one way that fascism is a structure.
Speaker:It's not just like an ideology. It's not just something that somebody picks up and says,
Speaker:well, now I'm this. uh It's a structure of domination and exploitation. of a specific
Speaker:or several specific groups of people in favor of um first the ruling class and using uh
Speaker:a mass uh base of people to support that project. that's kind of what we see. There's another
Speaker:example. um I mean, I'm sure there's several Canadian examples. The one that's popping into
Speaker:my head is there's a US a U.S. Docker, Docker union that was going on strike. This was
Speaker:maybe the last year or the year before. And they said, hey, we're going on strike because
Speaker:we want better pay, better conditions. But don't worry, we're still going to load all
Speaker:the weapons for Israel. Internationalism at its finest. Right. So so that's the thing
Speaker:is like you're still supporting the U.S. imperialist project. You just want a bigger piece of the
Speaker:cut. You want a bigger piece of that pie. And that's the kind of thing that that's the cut.
Speaker:That's class collaboration. You are fighting on. You're not fighting on behalf of the workers
Speaker:of the world. You're not fighting on behalf of the oppressed. You're fighting on behalf
Speaker:of your little piece of the pie from the relative safety of the Imperial Corps to get,
Speaker:you know, you're requesting from your overlords if you can have a little bit more, but don't
Speaker:worry, we'll keep bombing those people for you. Yeah, you talk about the structure there, but
Speaker:the labor aristocracy is also a structure. Because when we say collaboration, it sounds
Speaker:nefarious. It sounds like, you can pin it to an individual. But sometimes even the way
Speaker:that we've legislated and allowed unions, the way the state has integrated unions into their
Speaker:their legislation and the controls that they now wield over workers is also part of that
Speaker:class collaboration, right? That even good people within these institutions are stuck
Speaker:within a certain framework that's been created around labor organizing in Canada. absolutely.
Speaker:E, do you want to speak on that a bit? Yeah, happily. um Yeah, like for, I'm not sure if
Speaker:we put it in the document itself, but like for the Canadian context, the great sort of compromise
Speaker:of the early to mid 20th century, where in order to stop the constant slew of strikes
Speaker:and solidarity strikes and sympathy strikes from uh labor organizations in Canada, for
Speaker:those who don't know, there was this thing called the great compromise where essentially unions
Speaker:writ large, though not entirely. uh agreed to uh sign government mandated contracts between
Speaker:employers and unions and have unionization become a institutionalized uh legal process.
Speaker:But in exchange for that, uh in Canada gave up their right to strike at a moment's notice.
Speaker:So now you can only strike if you go through this very, very specific and lengthy, I might
Speaker:add, government mandated. process of negotiation, conciliation, the 14 day cool down period,
Speaker:and only then are you in a position where you're able to strike. Where the state has placed
Speaker:itself, and it is functionally, the mediator between labor and capital so that labor and
Speaker:capital do not devour each other in open conflict. That's the purpose behind the state, first
Speaker:and foremost, is to prevent class antagonisms from rupturing and devouring themselves. And
Speaker:in our context, uh when it comes to talking about fascism and class collaboration, uh it
Speaker:goes back further. But that's the greatest example that I can find is the laying down of arms
Speaker:from Canadian uh unions in exchange for legitimacy, in exchange for legal protections, uh at the
Speaker:expense of hyper-exploited laborers, our ability to strike at a moment's notice and to become
Speaker:more and more integrated with the state itself. to permit the state as the mediator between
Speaker:capital and labor rather than to combat it as this uh mediator between capital and labor.
Speaker:um And like in my own organizing experience, I've talked to workers who have said, what
Speaker:is this no strike clause that we have in our contracts? How can we get rid of that? And
Speaker:I say, yes. You're absolutely right. We should get rid of it. And that's how you talk about
Speaker:the history of this particular collaboration. But you see it even in poor exploited workers
Speaker:who recognize the absurdity of having a no strike clause in a uh union contract when the necessity
Speaker:of striking, the necessity of organized labor, the necessity of withdrawing your labor on
Speaker:a mass scale is required. Even um here in Halifax, for instance, when the professors at Dalhousie
Speaker:were on strike. all of the other unions were prohibited from joining in on a sympathy strike.
Speaker:The TAs could not, the janitors could not, the technical workers, librarians, so on and
Speaker:so forth, were impermitted from doing so, to the simple fact that they, the unions writ
Speaker:large historically gave up their right to strike at a moment's notice and to do sympathy strikes
Speaker:in exchange for uh the benefits that come with being a union in the Imperial Corps and
Speaker:collaborating with the state. And this comes from labor leaders, but it also comes from
Speaker:rank-and-file members who uh themselves will advocate for collaborating and not uh advocating
Speaker:for both themselves and for international workers themselves. So you have people who will say,
Speaker:yes, I want higher wages, but the stipulation that you're trying to add about Palestine,
Speaker:for instance, well, that's that has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with a
Speaker:union. That has nothing to do with organizing. Because in legally, and in exchange for this
Speaker:mediated process, it isn't. We have prohibited these types of conditions from being on the
Speaker:table of being strike actions. Political demands of our particular bosses cannot be part of
Speaker:strike items. It can only be economic issues that you have on the job. and certain social
Speaker:issues that are relevant specifically to their job. So yeah, I can talk about this all day,
Speaker:but I feel like I'm getting ahead of myself. Well, you've essentially described to how the
Speaker:state has worked, even though it's supposed to be a mediator, how it's essentially made,
Speaker:and this is language used when debunking myth or fangless, Not as powerful as they could
Speaker:or should be. So they've also done this with democracy, right? So we have the illusion
Speaker:that we vote, we participate in choosing the next leader of the working class party. And
Speaker:so we have a democracy here and we're still allowed to dissent, even though our program
Speaker:has documented the amount of uh persecution and prosecution people face for actually dissenting.
Speaker:that's, let's just. argue as a liberal for a moment that those things do exist, but they
Speaker:also exist under fascism, correct? So can you explain how you can say, I'm playing devil's
Speaker:advocate, I hope you understand that, but how can you say Canada is in a state of fascism
Speaker:when we can still participate in electoral politics the way that we do? and have such
Speaker:a range of candidates to choose from across the political spectrum um and also have uh
Speaker:weekly massive demonstrations in our cities. That's an excellent question. So this ties
Speaker:into the phases of fascism. And we get this when we read George Jackson's work, who was
Speaker:in the Black Panther Party. And he wrote about these different, he calls them stages, and
Speaker:I believe right now we use that term in the live document, but it's gonna be updated with
Speaker:phases, because stages kind of implies that there's this level, you you're That it's linear.
Speaker:Yeah, it's linear, and that's not the case. So there's different phases of fascism.
Speaker:There's stable, which is where things are actually, I mean, they're stable. Um, and, and fascism
Speaker:allows for some level of democracy or dissent. long as it's, it's fangless, it's toothless.
Speaker:Um, there's unstable, which is the, the picture of fascism that everybody thinks of, you know,
Speaker:it's Jack boots in the streets. It's, know, like it's the Nazi party swinging their flags
Speaker:everywhere. Uh, it's bombastic. It's it's in your face. Um, and then there's a out of
Speaker:power or movement fascism. or some might say street level fascism, which is like the gangs.
Speaker:uh It's like there are several fascist groups, openly white nationalist groups, let's say,
Speaker:for example, across Canada. And those would be movement fascism. So if you go through a
Speaker:document, we hope we do a good job of convincing people who read it that Canada is in a situation
Speaker:of stable fascism. um But you should also be able to see that At the same time, there are
Speaker:these movement fascisms percolating. And this is because the system's always moving and changing.
Speaker:So where we got these myths, particularly three and four, um are important to understand
Speaker:because we put these in uh after a meeting, a discussion on fascism uh that another organization
Speaker:was having. And they said that fascism destroys all democracy. um And they also said that fascism
Speaker:destroys all labor organizing. But when you actually look throughout history, that has
Speaker:never been the case. And in fact, the belief that fascism rejects all democracy and dissent,
Speaker:it destroys all the ability to protest and stuff, that was actually a line given out by the
Speaker:Communist Party of the USA uh by, want to say it was Browder. For people who know who that
Speaker:is, uh good on you. But basically this was like a turning point or one of the many turning
Speaker:points toward class collaboration that CPUSA had where they said, well, fascism just destroys
Speaker:all democracy and dissent. But functionally what that does when you say that is that, well,
Speaker:when people go outside and they're voting, or they're either taking part in a protest or
Speaker:they're in a union and they do have democratic forms in a union or they have this or that
Speaker:form of democracy. They say, well, this can't be fascism because fascism destroys all democracy
Speaker:and dissent, of course, right? So this place is fascism as an always, it's a never present
Speaker:thing, but an always approaching danger. And so you all, can use this as a scare tactic
Speaker:to say, well, we have to protect our democracy or else fascism will arrive. And in the last
Speaker:number of years, how many times have we seen that trotted out to say, Oh, well, we have
Speaker:to, you know, rally against this specific politician or this specific party because
Speaker:otherwise our democracy will be destroyed. Right. And this means that people are not actually
Speaker:looking at the real conditions about what's going on. They're not looking at is fascism
Speaker:already here because they believe, well, as long as I can vote, as long as I can get together
Speaker:with like-minded individuals and organize a protest or organize an action or something,
Speaker:we still have democracy. So it's not fascism yet. So that creates this problem that um
Speaker:kind of short circuits people. It does. And then they get concessions from the state, right?
Speaker:Because immediately what comes to mind is the dental plan, right? And that's used as evidence
Speaker:that organizing to this end reaps benefits, right? There are gains to be made that are
Speaker:worthwhile. But when you think about the cost that comes, not just as you described, you
Speaker:know, from the Global South and from Indigenous land dispossession, but from the normalization
Speaker:of class collaboration that you're giving up for these little bits, right? Similar to
Speaker:what unions gave up in order to be legitimized. absolutely. m You know, if you look through
Speaker:the history of... So our document focuses on the Nazis and the Italian fascists, primarily
Speaker:because everybody agrees they were fascists. Um, so we focus on those things because it's,
Speaker:it's a good baseline. Uh, and they, they all did this. They all had different forms of dissent
Speaker:or democracy that expanded or contracted based on the needs of the state at the time, right?
Speaker:The state is not like a, a neutral party in this. It's an engine of, uh, of class,
Speaker:uh, domination of one class over another class. So. uh a capitalist state in a fascist form
Speaker:is going to uh expand or contract democratic forms as it needs, provide democracy for a
Speaker:certain set of people so that they feel that they're in control, that they can say, oh,
Speaker:well, I'd like this benefit over this benefit. I'd like the theft of land to pay for dental
Speaker:care. I'd like it to pay for universal child care. whatever it is, right? So it brings
Speaker:people in, it bribes people, and this is a bribe that people take willingly. know, every settler
Speaker:here uh has taken this bribe willingly. And maybe unknowingly. Sometimes, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker:Like, I mean, everybody's a kid at some point. Blissfully unknowingly, you know? Yeah, because,
Speaker:you know, like, what adult doesn't know that maybe they don't know the details. Okay. Like
Speaker:I'm not saying that, but what adult does not really know that there are indigenous nations
Speaker:here. You know, there's a, uh, there's a level of willful ignorance where people know about
Speaker:it, but they don't go looking at it. You know, they don't, they won't go visit reserves. They
Speaker:won't really want to have a conversation with an indigenous person about settler society
Speaker:and like what the real like what colonialism really is and what it really does. Most settlers
Speaker:don't. uh So and this is because we have these these bribes that exist. And one of those is
Speaker:democratic forms uh and the ability to register dissent. You know, but often that dissent
Speaker:doesn't really do anything. Like rarely do you really see it uh do anything. many, how
Speaker:many protests against Canada's support of the genocide against Palestinians have there been
Speaker:and what concrete material gains have been, have been gained from that? You know, not
Speaker:that there's been zero, but the genocide continues because generally these protests have been
Speaker:about, well, let's hope that our leaders, let's talk to our leaders, tell our leaders, you
Speaker:know, our leaders as if they have the same uh ultimate interests as, you know, the workers.
Speaker:Let's shame them into doing the right thing. They don't have shame. Like, they don't have
Speaker:shame. uh Many of the leaders, many of the business leaders They enjoy it. They enjoy
Speaker:the power and the destruction that comes with their ability to wield wealth and control
Speaker:over, you know, millions and millions of people. They enjoy it. So they can't be shamed out
Speaker:of it. obviously understand the value of gathering and disseminating knowledge, but what is to
Speaker:be gained from making the argument that we are already in fascism? I mean, we need to know
Speaker:what the situation is. But then what do you do with that information? What are you hoping
Speaker:people do with that information? Do think it will change how they interact with the state
Speaker:or how they organize politically? Both. E, do you want to take that? Yeah, sure. When
Speaker:it comes to understanding that fascism is already here, it does a few different things. Number
Speaker:one, it stops people from doing lesser evilism by pretending as though there is some future
Speaker:worse hypothetical outcome in the far future or in the immediacy that we need to prevent
Speaker:and that we need to only prevent this stable fascism from becoming unstable fascism, if
Speaker:you want to use our terminology, for instance. Whereas what our argument shows is that in
Speaker:order for fascism to be overcome, you must end the processes that allow it to exist in
Speaker:the first place. You must end class collaboration. You must end settler colonialism. You must
Speaker:end the state's ability to hold, uh as M said previously, uh a position of oppression of
Speaker:the exploited classes uh beneath it. Like in order to end fascism, this is what is necessitated
Speaker:by this particular analysis. If in the event you have a situation where people are hoping
Speaker:beyond hope that in the future things are going to get better, if they can only get through
Speaker:this particular period or elect the right leader to stave off the inevitable, uh all you are
Speaker:doing is giving people a perpetual sense of false hope that this system can in fact be
Speaker:prevented from turning into that which they fear. Because in the immediacy, it is already
Speaker:here. It does not mean it can't get worse. But what it does mean is that in order to
Speaker:upend it, to end the fascist takeover that we are currently living in, you must upend
Speaker:the system which enables it to exist in the first place. Yeah, and especially when we're
Speaker:talking about the class collaboration aspect, there is a re-emphasis, not that there's
Speaker:a de-emphasis to begin with, but a re-emphasis on the... ending of class collaboration, not
Speaker:simply the class collaboration between labor and capital, though that's essential, but
Speaker:between workers and settlers and their exploiting capitalist class. You must engage in, as we
Speaker:talked about in the previous one, revolutionary defeatism, the seeking of the defeat of your
Speaker:own nation in its imperialist ambitions. uh When we see Mick Maw, uh Fischer's or Mick
Speaker:Maw treaty truckhouse uh owners or nations fighting against the Canadian state. We want
Speaker:the Canadian state to lose and we want the liberation of peoples to win. ah If we can
Speaker:believe that we are not existing in fascism, we somehow delude ourselves into believing
Speaker:that the Mi'kmaq fishers can achieve justice while they are being exploited, while they
Speaker:are uh suffering from settler colonialism and national exploitation, for instance. I don't
Speaker:know if M you want to add anything, but those would be the things I'd want to hammer home.
Speaker:No, I think you hit the nail on the head. um It's really like, how do we adjust our organizing
Speaker:um to combat what's really going on? um It's not working. The existing things that have
Speaker:been done are not working. uh Anarchism has been here for a long time. The dogmatic Marxism
Speaker:we talked about last episode has been here for a long time. The liberal uh bourgeois
Speaker:politics, electoral politics have been around even longer. The strategies that have been
Speaker:used are not working for revolution. Instead, they're working for reformism. People get
Speaker:to go out and feel okay. about themselves and their position. And then they go back to
Speaker:their homes uh because they are able to. They have the ability to shrug off politics. And
Speaker:that's really like part of the structure is that it gives some people the ability to do
Speaker:that. uh And so settlers need to uh choose to engage in politics in a way that the settler
Speaker:state does not like. Because we have to train ourselves to understand because the state
Speaker:is the enemy of oppressed peoples everywhere, we have to make the state our enemy. We have
Speaker:to understand that. And we have to look at the quote unquote Canadian identity and understand
Speaker:it for what it is. It's a settler identity. It's not real. um And when you unpack it, when
Speaker:you look at the history, when you theoretically understand the structures at play, the answer
Speaker:involves giving up uh the attachment to these things. Because even for settlers, even though
Speaker:have this, settlers have, we all have this short term benefit. Insiding with the state that's
Speaker:a hundred percent that will happen. You know, that's the tendency that's that's the bargain
Speaker:You know the bribe there's a short term because it prefers us right prefers us, right? It
Speaker:likes to use us as what I like to call fascist minutemen so that we're on the defense because
Speaker:we're playing this sort of passive game of of you know, Living out life, you know, you
Speaker:go do your job. Whatever, you know, come home watch Netflix have a barbecue Um, and you
Speaker:can have an okay life as long as you don't ask the questions and don't do anything about
Speaker:it, even if you do ask the questions. Uh, and then if you do get involved, it wants you
Speaker:on the active side of the minute man, uh, you know, persona where, which is to be an active
Speaker:participant in the domination of, of oppressed people. So that's kind of like. Oh yeah, sorry.
Speaker:You wanted to say something there. Well, I just feel like that's, that's where you are in
Speaker:BC and that's like to the end. I keep going to the NDP just cause it's fresh in my brain
Speaker:and I know a lot of people listening are like geared up again, but to just, you talk about
Speaker:make the state your enemy. We have so many comrades just trying to become the state and then stuck
Speaker:in this restrictive structure, even with possibly good intentions. But, you know, I just look
Speaker:to the BCNDP or just like eliminating indigenous rights and I don't understand how people
Speaker:are not making that connection or understanding that even in their best case scenario, even
Speaker:in what they would consider an ultimate victory. We still see the oppressive indigenous people,
Speaker:marginalized people, uh drug users, like you name it. And that makes me shake on the inside
Speaker:because I know they're not without a lot of this knowledge. Like this will be news for
Speaker:some people, but not others. And I think it is just this comfort level of being a settler,
Speaker:of knowing what that is and how to navigate it and being afraid of its absence, even though
Speaker:they know it doesn't work for them and they know it's exploitive and oppressive and they
Speaker:call themselves anti-capitalists, but they really are just afraid of finding a new structure
Speaker:of doing that work. And I'm angry about it. I don't expect you to have an answer to it,
Speaker:but I am very angry about it I have struggled through this. convention in this leadership
Speaker:race because I have these discussions with folks and I know that they could have known
Speaker:all this. You know, they do know it at some level, right? They do. But people who have
Speaker:been engaged in this kind of political struggle for some time, they know all of this to be
Speaker:true. They've seen it happen with the unions, especially. um So I absolutely love the way
Speaker:that you folks have put this document together. um And that's, it is not wasted energy whatsoever,
Speaker:whereas like that's how I feel a lot of the other kind of organizing efforts are going
Speaker:towards. So yes, this kind of want to be the state is just so counter intuitive to what
Speaker:we know the colonial state is. Can I just add something if that's all right? Please.
Speaker:Yes. And I just want to say like, it is true, as M said, we have a short term uh benefit
Speaker:in allying with the state in coordinating and collaborating with the state and collaborating
Speaker:with our class enemies. is a short there are short term gains there and that we have been
Speaker:reaping for the better part of hundreds, couple hundred years now, uh if not longer. But in
Speaker:reality, We have a long-term interest, a long-term interest in the victory of Indigenous nations
Speaker:against the Canadian state. We have a long-term interest in not coordinating and collaborating
Speaker:with the state. We have a long-term interest in a revolution which is truly progressive,
Speaker:truly decolonial, and that eliminates the kinds of exploitation and oppression that we experience
Speaker:in our daily lives. So while it is true that we have the short-term gains, and they are
Speaker:very real and they influence us and it's part of our analysis. If settlers and workers
Speaker:were to do a longer term analysis, they would understand that long term our benefit comes
Speaker:in the liberation of oppressed people and the abolition of the Canadian settler state without
Speaker:question, without question to live in a world or at least a society that does not have rampant
Speaker:exploitation of ourselves, our lands, our people, our labor. that does not commodify uh women's
Speaker:experiences in the home, so on and so forth. To be able to build a more progressive society
Speaker:requires not collaborating with the state or collaborating with our class enemies, but in
Speaker:its overthrow. And those are where the long-term benefits of the ending of exploitation really
Speaker:comes from. Absolutely. And yeah, thanks for bringing it back, finishing my thought, E.
Speaker:um The this is why reformism doesn't work because reformism is all about those short term gains.
Speaker:But when you I'm fond of saying capital comes for everyone eventually. So like the settlers
Speaker:with all our little benefits and treats and all that stuff like you know look at the world
Speaker:right now look at the contracting and the violence of the US empire of which Canada is a major
Speaker:player. look at that going on and the shaking that's happening in the global economy, that's
Speaker:coming back here. Like the various austerity and stuff that's going on across Canada and
Speaker:in the US uh is because of the shaking of the global economy, because of the uh simultaneous
Speaker:weakening and the uh increase in violence of imperialism. Capital has to shrink the
Speaker:benefits it gives people here. So at some point, uh know, like settlers, more settlers will
Speaker:say, because I don't think it's uh ever going to fully go away the benefits, but more settlers
Speaker:are going to see these benefits drying up. And so it's anybody, a human's responsibility
Speaker:to look for uh long-term solutions to exploitation and oppression and if settlers continue
Speaker:to Take these bribes if settlers continue to do nothing about it then Capital is going to
Speaker:come for you eventually and if it doesn't then the revolution will so you know Figure out
Speaker:what what side of things you're on, you know, like you have to be looking at these things.
Speaker:It doesn't mean rush out and just start doing everything willy-nilly, it means take some
Speaker:time, really seriously look at it and decide consciously what you are going to do with
Speaker:your life. Because capital will come for you eventually. It can't not. It just functionally
Speaker:cannot do anything but consume. I typically like to end on a positive note, but... That
Speaker:is right that you are trying to spur people into uh action in the right direction, right?
Speaker:So sometimes it's very freeing to come to that conclusion that there is no hiding from it.
Speaker:There's no delaying it. That that your energy is much better spent making that realization
Speaker:and organizing. can end it on a positive note if you want. uh Do it. I do have to run those.
Speaker:it's gotta be a quick one. to point out I overheard a conversation of some liberals. They're talking
Speaker:about the ICE killings. And they were saying, I overheard them say, well, now any one of
Speaker:us could be targeted. Now any one of us could be targeted. And that right there is an admission
Speaker:that the same things have been happening. It's just now there's different segments of the
Speaker:population that are included. in being targeted by fascists. uh But what I would say is, as
Speaker:a counterpoint to my watch out capital's coming for you, is that on the other side of that,
Speaker:uh on the other side of that, that kind of leap that people have to make into real anti-capitalist
Speaker:work is that you're building relationships that keep you safe. It's not just about uh burning
Speaker:yourself for the revolution, though that does happen. uh It's about building relationships
Speaker:that uh generate real community, that generate relationships that last for generations,
Speaker:that build a society that uh is stronger, that is uh more healthy, that is more beneficial
Speaker:for people, and is headed towards liberation instead of desolation. And that's really what,
Speaker:you that's the long-term goal of communism is to build that kind of thing. Um, and you
Speaker:know, for myself personally, uh, arc has been a great benefit for me, for my mental health.
Speaker:Um, you know, ease uh a fantastic comrade. Um, there's several other comrades, all the
Speaker:comrades in arc, um, you know, are fantastic. Uh, and we're building things. ah Just in
Speaker:our organization, others are doing things in theirs and we're building connections with
Speaker:each other. And these things are designed to uh keep us healthy and to keep us safe. So
Speaker:that's a great benefit. That is absolutely a positive note. It was the exact advice given
Speaker:to me by the previous guests in the studio when asked, how do we assist the diaspora
Speaker:of Lebanon? know, it seems like a completely unrelated subject. ah But the answer was, you
Speaker:know, to build community, not just around your comrades, but, you know, for a purpose, ah
Speaker:because it is kind of dual purpose there. And as we dismantle something, it would be irresponsible
Speaker:of us not to, at the same time, build that new model, right? To carry us through, to be something
Speaker:new on the other end. uh And if we organize two ends that look just like the ones we're
Speaker:trying to dismantle, I think that becomes a lot more difficult to do, right? Once we get
Speaker:there. And also impossible to get there. ah I very much enjoyed this discussion and appreciate
Speaker:you folks coming back on um to share this knowledge. I, of course, will not just share this document
Speaker:that we've been talking about in the show notes, but links to more of your work and folks
Speaker:can check in on you themselves. And I wish you the very best of luck in your growth.
Speaker:Thank you so much. And thank you for having us on again. Absolute pleasure as always.
Speaker:That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints of Disruption. Thank you for joining us. Also,
Speaker:a very big thank you to the producer of our show, Santiago Helu-Quintero. Blueprints of
Speaker:Disruption is an independent production operated cooperatively. You can follow us on Twitter
Speaker:at BPEofDisruption. If you'd like to help us continue disrupting the status quo, please
Speaker:share our content. And if you have the means, consider becoming a patron. Not only does our
Speaker:support come from the progressive community, so does our content. So reach out to us and
Speaker:let us know what or who we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.
