By Cedric Chen
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee

I’ve been an activist ever since I was a high schooler in China. Although activism in China is largely underground and therefore very different from activism in North America, the aim is the same: to make this world a better place for more people. After I came to Canada, I decided that it was time for my underground activism to come above-ground, so I joined Greenpeace and became a volunteer. Later, I joined Occupy Vancouver. For these past six years, I’ve been working hard and doing whatever I can to spread the word that a better world is possible. However, there have recently been quite a few incidents that got me rethinking what has been going on in the various activist movements I follow, and my conclusion is honestly sad: it’s on a crash course.

The most vital sign of a movement’s decline is that many activists, even activists from the same front, have started turning their guns at each other rather than keeping their guns aimed at their common enemies — be it the big corporations, big real estate developers, the government(s), etc. To make things more disheartening, they didn’t do so because some activists decided to join the enemies, but simply because they have different opinions regarding how their common goals can be achieved. The first time I experienced this was in an online discussion about a BC Green Party’s proposal that suggested TransLink should increase fare check density. I said I thought that was a brilliant idea, since I’d had enough of TransLink sucking fare payers’ money to compensate the loss to fare-evaders, but someone immediately retorted, “What the hell is wrong with you?” I suppose she didn’t know that I’m also a strong advocate for TransLink to undergo financial reform, but regardless, is this any proper way to treat a fellow activist?

This phenomenon intensified when Occupy Vancouver started its encampment at VAG and got worse after Occupy Vancouver was evicted. While the moderators tried their very best to provide a platform for a variety of people to advocate for how we can improve the world, there were always those who enjoyed interrupting the speakers for the sake of hearing their own voices. While they’ve got their points, is it really so difficult to give someone that is not from the one per cent some basic respect? Although I didn’t agree with all the speakers, I never interrupted any of them. When Occupy: The Documentary was premiered at Rio Theatre, I met someone who left Occupy Vancouver before the exodus following the Ashley Gough accident. He told me, “The alienation in Occupy Vancouver forced me out.” This is a warning sign that shouldn’t be overlooked.

There appears to be doctrines specific to individual movements that not only can one not break, but also not question. If you disagree with any of them, you’re a troll, and/or there must be something wrong with you. If you don’t agree with that transit services should be absolutely free, you’re a troll. If you believe in even the most modest form of nationalism, something’s fucking wrong with you! Even if you argue that TransLink must undergo financial reform, and even if your form of nationalism is simply for the preservation of your already-endangered cultures and languages without declaring that any culture is supreme while others are subprime, something must be wrong with you and other activists therefore have free reign to yell at you all they want!

While I understand that dissenting voices make many activists anxious, it’s extremely vital for all of us to keep digging for more background knowledge about any statements made by activists, especially those on our side. If someone believes in modest nationalism because he grew up experiencing his native culture being overwhelmed by a foreign culture, we should not shoot first and ask later. When others say “What the fuck is wrong with you?!” they’re wasting energy bringing down their peers instead of focusing that energy on effecting change. No wonder we can no longer gather the momentum that we used to have.

Not many people like to be compared to communists, but in this case communist parties offer us an apt comparison. When socially-minded movements begin to fight internally rather than externally, the forces they originally rallied together against easily usurp their power. After the Big Purge, the Nazi forces were able to strike into the Soviet Union and kick the Red Army in its groin for three long months; after Khmer Rouge slaughtered hundreds of thousands of intellectuals, the Vietnamese army was able to bulldoze into Phnom Penh within one month. Similarly, the activists are weakening not the oppressive forces, but themselves. The one per cent can only benefit from these divisions forming within our ranks.
This trend is dangerous for sure, but the cliff is still a ways off. If activists stop tagging everything they don’t like as “the one per cent’s crap,” even if its the opinion of someone within the movement, and start respecting a variety of voices instead of just those that adhere to a strict doctrine, there’s still hope for Occupy to make real change in the world. It’s time to recalibrate and aim not at one another but the oppressive forces we came together to oppose in the first place.