As an attendee of the Solidarity Halifax conference, I must say that I was frustrated as well by the lack of coherence to the discussion.  But, as the organizers stated, this was only meant to be a "baby step" conference to be built upon by more solidarity halifax conferences to come.

I am looking forward to the next one!

A few ideas on how it could be improved:

-At the next conference, try to formulate some principles such as the ones stated above, by which we can measure our progress or regression as an anti-capitalist left.  At the conference after that, discuss whether we have stuck by these prinicples and whether we feel they are still working.

-Mix it up a little bit.  Have a few speakers deliver talks every now and then.  Screen interviews featuring critical figures from the anti-capitalist movement... much of the work has already been done, we should try to build on it, not start from scratch!

-Have some sort of online forum (like this one) which people can discuss the event well in advance, so as to better inform the conference organizers of what people want out of the conference

Cole, Dave, you strike me as ideal candidates for potential speakers!

Also, I think that Cole raises a very good point:

perhaps before we have conferences to address the question of "how do we intervene in the class struggle?", we should first have a conference on the more abstract and fundamental question: "what principles do we stand by and judge ourselves according to when intervening in class struggle?"

Keep this discussion going!

I was also in attendance at the surprisingly large – to me -- conference and participated throughout. I also am employed in an activist organization (NSPIRG) that I include, implicitly, in the critique below.

Cole brings up a good point about the concept "anti-capitalist" being employed in a rather vague sense on Sunday, and also the false implication of there an anti-capitalist movement existing here. I think it's important to be honest and self critical to actually overcome the barriers to revolutionary activity that clearly exist.

But I'd like to point out, before going any further, that I'm not saying anyone organizing the event was necessarily disingenuous, just that certain crucial issues were not approached, which ends up being counterproductive. How we got to the point is not as important as the point itself. I am offering these ideas for constructive criticism, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered at all. It seems obvious to me that Cole was doing something similar.

"Anti-capitalist", by itself, does not really give one much information about what you mean. I have, in the past, used this label to describe myself and certain organizations, but don't anymore without significant elaboration. It became clear how presumptive I was being in assuming people would somehow know what I meant by using the term. It was clear that there were major differences of opinion that the label "anti-capitalist" did NOT draw out. This problem should not be fed into. Without actually stating what you are for, in a concrete manner, you are leaving so much room for interpretation that no movement can really be built in any significant direction. Cole listed an example of principles that give some direction, those from Libcom.org. I would not lay out my principles with the same words, and have some alterations of the ideas themselves, but I would pronounce myself as a libertarian communist.

But the issue of labeling is not the most significant concern. The more important issue is implying that something is there when it actually isn't. To be fair to movements that actually do, and have, existed, we should not call whatever was represented at the conference, in part or whole, any kind of existing social movement with any cohesion, let alone one against capitalism. Nothing is actually moving, other than capital. Obviously, most / all people in the room on Sunday want there to be a social movement, and maybe that is what the organizers really meant; however, that was not clear to me.

I also felt that if it was indeed more than just a minor, cosmetic adjustment, but the actual building of something – out of almost nothing – that was desired, the organizers would have posed different questions. Cole gave some important reflections on what such questions should be, but I would add others. Such questions would be been geared towards critical evaluation of the structures of the organizations we are presently part of, and the barriers to actual revolutionary activity that they are surrounding us with. Structure and function are intimately intertwined. And the present structure-function came from somewhere.

We have to remember the roots of the organizations, and activism in general, that largely characterized the crowd on Sunday.

Essentially, the futility of such organizations, and of present activism, has a  lot of do with their origination during times of rights based movements (women, queer, student, anti-racist, etc) who were seeking reforms in a developing (between WWII and end of 1960s or so), then eroding (early 1970s til today) welfare state. There was an idea of  "everyone can improve their lot", really the idea that there could be some negotiation with capital. The Labour movement, through unions, played into this, in addition to other social movements. They became (further) entrenched with a reformist character. The unions agreed to more limitations on strikes in exchange for various concessions and more defined negotiating powers. Gone from the labour movement was the articulation of a struggle against wage slavery and capitalism itself. Look in the historical records, including of Cape Breton, and you'll find how the language -- and action -- was fundamentally different, even revolutionary at times, in generations gone by.

Of course, it is true that even as the welfare state came into being, there were currents that attempted to push the rights based movements towards more revolutionary directions, and there were those that acted on their own – various anarchist strands that still exist in various forms today – but the development of large non-profit organizations and more entrenched union bureaucracies far exceeded their presence and overall effect.

Make no mistake. There were large social movements at that time, and they were in a way all trickling into a river: the creation of the non-profit industrial Complex (Complex) -- and I would include the modern union (in Canada and the US) as part of that, due to their serving the same function, presently, as the others. Non-profit organizations made up of lefty activists exploded in presence during the days of the welfare state, making the Complex quite significant in influence. There were suddenly more causes than you could count. The increased affluence in society post WWII, in general – which had some demobilizing effect of its own -- helped enable the Complex with funds. Other funds were accumulated through grants based on tax revenue. This Complex helped resonate a conveniently manufactured hope – one that developed a wide public acceptance -- that the eroding welfare state kept feeding people: "fight for your rights, but do it within the legal limits of the system, and maybe you'll get somewhere". This hope placed more power for change in the hands of the State, displacing it from the grassroots.

The groups that form the Complex developed legal standing (and limits) and particular functions within the evolving capitalist social order. This seemed to be functional at the time because progressive alterations to the laws and policies were taking place. People also developed privilege within their paid positions in the Complex, and volunteers a sense of hope that they were part of efforts for social change.

A culture of reforming capitalism – which the system only allows as is consistent with their primary interest of ensuring profits – has developed ... Rallies, press releases and lots of lobbying ... But all the while, the welfare state has been retreating, starting in the 1970s as a response to another profit crisis of capitalism, and went on the offensive again with the neoliberal phase.

Obviously, I'm skipping over a lot of important historical moments (I'm not trying to write a book). Of course, there are exceptions to this reformist character, for example, the indigenous struggle at Kanasetake in 1990 (as part of a larger native sovereignty movement), amongst many others. Those should be recognized. But my purpose here is pointing out a general character in present activism in the Complex, one lacking much of any leverage to change anything in a revolutionary direction.

Currently – with the crisis well in progress -- the welfare state is gone and there are no more attempts to hide its disappearance. It is clear that there is no interest whatsoever in Capital and the State making concessions as a response to persistent lobbying and public rallies. They have too much at stake to simply give things up without an actual fight. The concessions of the past – pensions, better pay, etc – are being expropriated by capital.

Unfortunately, while the welfare state has shed its cloak, the activists and Complex they are interconnected with have not changed – in any significant sense – in word or deed. They have been mired in a futility that cannot be disconnected from a feeling of security that the Complex offers, and not wanting to lose that. Also, those in the Complex have been socialized to continue the behaviour that they were born into (organization mandates, etc), an inertial character of their structure-function .

But obviously, the failure to really win any kind of concessions in recent times doesn't bode well for gaining any support from the majority of working and poor people – so the people instead elect right wing politicians like Ford in Toronto. People don't place their hopes on losers.

However, there are many who felt that temporarily, some leverage ws being rebuilt in recent times. Some talk about there being a movement in the late 1990s - early 2000s in the form of the movement for global justice, which seemed to be gaining ground while expressing “anti capitalism”. But in the US and Canada, those “movements” were largely based around summit protests and had engendered a weak anti-capitalist identity that had a vagueness in the usage of “anti-capitalist” similar to what I described above and what Cole said in his comments. These global justice currents were easily dried up in our part of the world since they never really held a revolutionary fibre – a basis in people's daily struggles for control over their lives. The same problem applies to the recent anti war movement that died.

If we recollect how the welfare state even arose in the first place, it was to try and co-opt revolutionary currents in working class movements. Workers were continually defying the capitalist laws in their struggles for better conditions and control over their lives and the capitalists were concerned. So the state threw concessions at the workers. The concessions were a bone to chew on. But the State, along with increasingly coopted labour organizations, built cages around the workers.

It is important to recognize that concessions were won through struggle, struggle that was associated with threats to the social order. Without that stick, nothing of significance would have been surrendered in the first place.

So, in the present moment, those who actually want to end capitalist social relations and work towards values based on “solidarity, co-operation and the principle, 'from each according to ability, to each according to need’”, would need to understand the importance of being part of movements that actually bare teeth, fundamentally challenging the capitalist laws in the course of advancing. This doesn't mean reproducing the welfare state! That would bing people back to where we are today, a shitty place.

And I don't want to overplay the significance of organizations that are a part of the Complex, but they have been playing a role. Things are already happening out there on a grounded level. Working and poor people struggle daily for any semblance of dignity. There are little ways people offer up resistance to the brutality of capitalism – squatting, skipping work, skipping rent, scamming the government, shoplifting, etc – which concede nothing to the State or capital, but neither are they actually challenging them fundamentally. These people are just taking risks as individuals. And unfortunately, these days, whenever individual incidents of being treated like shit from bosses, landlords, corporations, cops and the State begin to coagulate into collective actions, members of the Complex are often there to take leading roles, ending up doing so in counter-revolutionary ways: ensuring that actions are organized to be well behaved / legal so that their organizations, paid organizers and key activists don't look bad in front of the corporate media and lose support and/or money. Activities are being managed. This Complex behaviour is a byproduct of the structure-function that has developed, lingering from earlier years like a bad habit.

We all know what must be done with bad habits ...

All this entails eventually testing the outer limits of the organizations themselves, not being afraid to risk their legal / total existence as part of cooperating with the rising anger of working and poor people. It is a positive thing if walls are destroyed in the course of developing revolutionary movements.

It would be foolish to suggest that there are revolutionary movements in existence right now, where we live. So, it seems the real task for those entrenched in activism, at present, would be to start with the questions Cole posed, or something similar, calling for more specific articulation of what people want. Then, put to question the nature of the organizations that constitute this Complex and other loosely constituted activists that are stuck in the muck -- those that are talking about challenging capitalism. What are the barriers that prevent theory from going to practice?

I find this post largely insincere and condescending.

Cole, you had access to the questions posed at this conference and the schedule long before it was released - you are on the listserv that this conference was organised now. In this case, as well as with your critiques of anti-G8 organising in Halifax at the Dominion launch, your criticisms are ill-placed and ill-timed.

You could have questioned the value of the conference's questions long before the conference. You could have spoken to the organisers in advance. You could have come to a meeting. It seems like you would rather spend time launching critiques at people who are doing things, without actually engaging with the organising that people are doing.

Being relevant to other "working people" (who are we talking about here?) is about struggling with them, being patient, and listening to their struggles. I question your account of "inclusivity." I am not confused by liberal notions of multiculturalism. Rather, I accept and recognize that I live in a society that is racist and values white supremacy. Unless I actively resist those ideologies in my community and in myself, then any claim I make of being anti-racist or supporting sturggles of racialised peolple is bullshit. The same goes for sexism. Unless your fight against those things in yourself and in your community is active, then it's just lipservice.

This doesn't always mean that we need to make sure people are included, sometimes it means that we need to figure out how we can support other struggles around us, and this takes work, hard work.

It's easy to dismiss everyone as "paid activists" as you said at the conference, but I want to ask if you even asked who was on the organising committee. If you had, you would have found: a couple of contract workers, a couple of people who are unemployed, a municipal worker, and a couple of people who work for community organisations. Why are these people, who may be politicized, not part of your working class?

There are a lot of critiques that can be made of the conference. I am not opposed to critiques. I am jsut skeptical of where these are coming from and what the goal of this post is.