In other words, not much. To use a group like the homeless- many of whom are not fully mentally capable or on drugs- as a political tool is shameful.
Contrapuntal- in an earlier post the OP admitted he was the dude mentioned in the Wiki article as the organizer.
In case you missed it before:
-
How do you consider yourselves “industrial workers” when none of you are employed in any industry?
-
What do you expect from the system you want to smash in terms of welfare, benefits, programs to get off the street or anything else?
Thanks.
Oh come on, I know grad students who are unionized under the UAW. The United Auto Workers.
I don’t know anyone who belongs to any union so it’s all new to me.
StS, what’s your position on state-funded healthcare for the indigent?
SmashTheState is obvious very concerned about the rights and welfare of street people. Under his proposed system (see post 138) it would be “impossible to . . . beg for money” because “credits could not be given to someone else in exchange for anything,” and “would only be redeemable at a parecon store or other sort of vendor.” In short, busking or vending would be prohibited under SmashTheState’s system, unless the vendors were permitted by the powers that be – which is precisely the problem faced by buskers and vendors today who are running into trouble because they do not have permits to busk and to vend.
This indicates that SmashTheState assumes that his system would somehow be more supportive of street people, despite it requiring vending permits just like our system, and despite it prohibiting giving credits in exchange for anything. SmashTheState, therefore, must be assuming that something inherent in SmashTheState’s system would cause people to be more generous in their group decision making than they are now with the present system. Since there is nothing to support this proposition, it leaves us with SmashTheState using street people to smash the state, despite there being no indication at all that a smashed state will result in SmashTheState’s system arising, and no indication at all that SmashTheState’s system would in fact improve the lot of street people.
What makes one think that the powers that be would be any more willing to care for street people under SmashTheState’s system than they are under the present system? In either system, street people will still be dependants.
I know nobody will even read this – being several pages in – but let me say it anyway.
No offense, but this is ridiculous. Yes, I said it. You’re playing College Marxist amongst people who are overwhelmingly (a) mentally ill, and/or (b) substance-addicted. Seriously. I know the homeless, and they aren’t “tradesmen” looking for a benefactor (you) to organize them – they’re desperate people living a desperate lifestyle.
The IWW (who I’m completely familiar with) died largely because it tried to organize any one and everyone (like panhandlers). They were an important group, but were quickly overtaken by more rational organizers who saw that, yes, there were laborers who had no power, and focused on them. The Wobblies, OTOH, wanted to tear the whole system down – but offered no substitute. Yes, I know. Joe Hill, et all. Many had honorable goals, but they didn’t want to…well, to be reasonable. This is why other unions stepped in and formed the basis for modern union-management relations.
Going back to what I said originally, why are you unionizing panhandlers? The panhandlers themselves are, as I said, desperate people – they want money, or drugs, or booze, or what-have-you. The populace at large doesn’t want panhandlers – they’re a nuisance. You come in to “organize” them, except…you have nothing to offer either party. The panhandlers have no power, because they offer nothing of value that they can withold – the classic angle of any union. The “customers” would be glad to have the union members go away. There’s utterly nothing here that would benefit from collective bargaining, as far as i can see – and I’, all for helping the homeless.
I know this will probably mark me as a dick to you, but honestly, have you considered where you’re spending your energy? These people have needs, and to pretend that they are providing a service is just being willfully obtuse. Why not spend your time helping them with their very real problems, instead of pretending this is some sort of Marxist situation?
Not to speak for SmashTheState, but he did say that he, like all members of the OPU, either is or used to be a street person. So presumably he does know the homeless as well, and isn’t commuting every day from his suburban home in order to “save” them. And he did express his disdain for the “liberals” who do this.
He also identifies as an anarchist, not a Marxist. To Muffin who finds it disturbing to have the OPU affiliated to an openly revolutionary organization and with an openly anarchist organizer and spokeperson, I see your point, but I believe that (and SmashTheState is free to correct me if I’m wrong) it doesn’t really influence their activities. The OPU’s goal isn’t to overthrow capitalism, it is to unite Ottawa’s street people (including workers) and have them negotiate as a single voice with the police and political power. This goal doesn’t change just because they’re affiliated with the IWW or because their organizer’s personal political beliefs are anarchist.
“Hir?”
I notice that SmashTheState, real name Andrew Nellis, considers Nestor Makhno to be a hero. At least that’s what his profile on Anarchopedia claims. To this I would ask, do you really think Nestor Makhno would support your movement if he was alive today? I fail to see how anyone who admired Makhno could really be in favor of a “panhandler’s union.” Nestor Makhno was a military commander. He was the leader of a peasant army and he aspired to create a peasant state (in other words, founded on agricultural labor. In other words, work.) There is no way that he would have liked the idea of people whose only “work” is panhandling to be organizing into a union; he would have found the whole concept degrading and ridiculous, at least in my opinion. If you want to take after Nestor Makhno you would be better off starting a smallholding movement and creating a small self-sustaining agricultural community. This is far from an unobtainable goal and you already have the manpower to do labor.
Lame attempt to be non-gender-specific without using the perfectly acceptable “their”.
You need to read the entire thread. Smash is not using the word “union” in the sense you are. The panhandles don’t have power as workers, they have power as agitators. They don’t bargain for higher wages, they agitate for fair treatment.
Seems more like they agitate to assist the anarchist goals, not “fair teatment”.
This does not negate my point that Smash is not using the word “union” in the usual sense, and that someone who actually read all 3.5 pages of this would know this.
As I don’t know anything beyond what Smash has told us, I can’t really say whether or not your above assesment is correct. However, I don’t see how copwatch is a bad thing.
You don’t know a single teacher? You don’t know anyone who works for the government?
Have these snitches and suck-ups made any moves toward forming their own union?
Labor unions characterize capitalists as living off the work of others and therefore deserving of political opposition. But isn’t that pretty much what your panhandlers are doing, living off the work of others? Therefore, wouldn’t a labor union as commonly understood be against panhandling, not in favor of it? You could have called your group a poor people’s coalition, but as you have said, you consciously chose to call it a union representing panhandlers. How do you square this with the historical role of labor unions? Or is this just an elaborate hoax meant to discredit the labor movement, kind of like when some art students in my town went on the local news with an “Arm the Homeless” campaign?
If one considers street people to be a result of a capitalist system, then unionizing them fits within the Wobblies’ goal of social justice.
I don’t think that anyone is questioning that a tough and aggressive stance fits the goals of the I.W.W. , but I(and maybe some others) question whether a tough and aggressive stance will help the panhandlers in any way, seeing as how one of the major complaints now is that they are too tough and aggressive.