ACU mayhem: a critical response from a possible ally
Hier kun je discussieren over ACU mayhem: a critical response from a possible ally.
But... the form and the tone of this call-out are so unappealing to me that I feel compelled to first react in a rather bitter way - at least I will have shown the very first bit of the solidarity that is asked for, which is to match the tone of those sending out the call-out in the first place. Please also note that english is not my first language, so I'm forced to simplify whatever it is I have to say.
So let's read this call-out:
> We 'critical' volunteers, ex volunteers, activists and other people
> involved with the ACU call out for a public meeting on the 6th of
> January. Starting at 19.30. Although the 'ACU' does not comply with
> this call out, we stress out the need for a public meeting.
For me the problems arising from this call-out start right here: who are these self-nominated "volunteers, ex volunteers, activists and other people involved"? Here we are made to think that there is a group that formed outside the regular ACU to discuss their discontent, because they felt it was not adressed properly by the rest of the ACU. But it also reads as if no-one in this group wants to take responsability for it, or even give him or herself a name - rather, it seems that this is the work of very few people who use anonimity on the assumption that they represent more people, but make no serious effort in making this assumption believable.
Moreover, the step ataken is kinda startling if you think of how such a 'public meeting' should look like: since the rest of the ACU has stated they do not comply with calling out for a public meeting, how is that meeting going to look like? As a person answering this call-out, what am I suppose to expect? Honestly, it feels a bit like I'm being asked to come and perform a violent take-over, or at best be a spectator at some kind of people's trial. None of these options is very appealing, nor is it one of the things that I'd like to do to express my solidarity with people who claim that there is an urgent situation of racism and what more in the ACU. So from the very beginning, the form chosen by this mysterious group makes me doubt their political beliefs.
> The future of ACU
>
> The discussion started after the publication of the article discussed
> on https://www.indymedia.nl/node/20220 This article shows apart from
> a lot of frustration some of the real problems. The individual cases
> are not suitable to be discussed online, but this text will attempt
> to clarify a bit without going into individual cases.
Why are the individual cases not suitable to be discussed online? How can we be pointing fingers at people, accusing them of being racists (a grave insult in my own set of values), without giving some clues at what exactly happened? No wonder you get into 'a lot of frustration' if you forbid yourself to talk freely and openly about racist incidents.
> ACU background
Ok, that one is clear.
> Power structures Over time power structures developed. These power
> structures are based on several factors which include: understanding
> and further complicating the technical installations, living close to
> ACU, seniority, control of finances, not sharing skills, … Not
> everybody who ended up in a position of power has done so on purpose,
> but these power structures have made certain volunteers and their
> friends untouchable for criticism.
Mmmh, let me see: so these certain volunteers who have gained power by living close to the Acu and by understanding technical stuff, without doing so on purpose, are now untouchable for criticism. Do you mean that they are the victims of power structures that develop autonomously? So you suggest there should be a system that kicks people away as soon as they grow old ("gain seniority", yeah what a gain) or start to understand the financial stuff properly at last? Or is this written solely with the purpose of damaging this older crew ('they refuse to listen to my critics because they are in power') without attacking them frontally ('it's not their fault, they are victim of a process')? What does 'untouchable for criticism' actually mean? If it means that generally you are aware that people tend to grow stuck in some routine and are therefore less eager to change things, being able to make this observation also means that you seem very well able to make a proposal on how to change that. Proposing to crash the door at the next volunteer meeting with random people who answer an anonymous call made on Indymedia makes me think that you are not so much frustrated with the observed Power Structures problem, but that you are frustrated because your proposal to challenge these structures didn't make it. Without any details on what your critcism was and how it was not adressed, it is difficult to develop any empathy with your frustration, other than a vague feeling that you are frustrated because you didn't gain power yourself. If this is the problem, since you observed that some people gained power by seniority, there is an obvious solution for your problem: grow up.
> Secrecy There is a culture of secrecy in ACU both towards customers
> as to volunteers. This secrecy is both a means to ignore criticism
> and a process which enables people to remain in their positions of
> power. There is secrecy about problems, finances, techniques and
> ordering of drinks. The reaction tot the the article discussed on
> https://www.indymedia.nl/node/20220 shows how secrecy and denial is a
> reflex of ACU.
Secrecy is on old squatters weapon, which as any weapon may very well be misused. But it is in no way an evil thing just by itself, something which you seem to agree with since you take the trouble of explaining that in the case of the ACU it is misused as a means to ignore criticism and keep power. Now it seems very reasonable that some stuff be kept 'secret' from customers, or at least not actively made public. It seems weird that all information is not shared with volunteers, but here again we fall short of judgement since no detail is given to us. What are the questions you asked about finances that have not been answered? Which technical stuff do you feel you should be more actively involved in mastering? What is unclear about the ordering of drinks?
> Personal attacks Volunteers who want to discuss problems within the
> collective are met with denial. If they don't back down after this
> denial the next step is personal attacks during meetings and by
> email. These attacks include verbal abuse, ridiculing, (threatening
> with) physical violence, blackmail, forcing people to relive trauma,
> etc. This has caused many volunteers to leave.
Again, elaborate. Problems being 'denied' may also very well mean that you are the only one who has a problem. It's hard to face, but if you take the other volunteers seriously, you do have to ask yourself this question. Then, upon insisting on what you perceive as a problem and others apprently don't, you notice that others are upset: that seems not more than normal, since you do not respect their opinion. Now how exactly did people 'verbally abuse' you? Is this email I'm writing a form of abuse, because I don't agree with you? Oh, and someone even dared to 'ridiculise' you, like, they made a joke, right? Would you consider the eventuality that people purposedly tried to relieve the tension caused by your problem by using humor? Then we step up to physical violence, blackmail, and trauma: these are very serious accusations, and they lose their credibility quickly when you don't give at least a hint at what has exactly happened. And what to think of the "etc" that ends this series of very serious accusations? Are the readers supposed to imagine themselves what for more horrible things happened, relieving you from the apparently difficult task to name facts?
>
> Decision making ACU is supposed to be a consensus based collective.
> This is not how decision making works in ACU. When volunteers wants
> to force their opinion this is done by over shouting other volunteers
> at meetings, repeating oneself and talking so long that other people
> just say yes to end the discussion. When people don't like decisions
> which are made they just ignore the decisions, this sometimes leads
> to actual sabotage of other volunteers' work.
Mmmh, sounds like just another not very well functioning collective. Fair enough. Also sounds like yourself are an acting part of the described mechanisms. The rant you've started is by far more agressive than talking loud at meetings.
> Racism There is both subtle and blatant racism in ACU. The blatant
> form of racism include the use of racist derogatories to describe
> both customers and volunteers to other volunteers. When people are
> confronted the tendency is to deny the racist nature of their
> comments.
So, you are an authority on the matter? Please enlighten us and describe what is it that people say and why it is 'racist'. Otherwise we are stuck with just another general description, where rather academic vocabulary seems to be used only in order to mask the lack of serious facts.
> Other forms of discrimination Apart from racism all other forms of
> discrimination (including homofobia and sexism) are perpetrated in
> ACU, partly by volunteers. When people are confronted the tendency
> again is to deny the discriminatory nature of their comments. A sign
> to make clear that discrimination is not tolerated in ACU has been
> trashed and later removed by ACU volunteers.
'All forms of discrimination'. Please take at least yourself seriously, and think twice before making a fool of yourself. This general accusation doesn't make sense. Then there is the (by now famous) sign that contained so many forbidden 'isms' some people genuinely believed it was a good example of what the dutch call 'zelfspot' (making fun of yourself). I have understood that the sign was replaced with a much shorter one _after_ several long negociations in the ACU meeting. Not even mentionning the discussions about it makes your plea rather weak. In fact, it seems like you're blatantly denying other peoples opinion and actively try to hide facts.
>
> Harassment There are severe cases of harassment happening in ACU on a
> daily basis. Usually this is amongst customers and sometimes ACU
> steps in and tells the harasser to leave.
Hey! something positive! So the ACU is not hell on earth. How many bars do you know (yes, also alternative ex-squatters bars, we have quite a few of them in netherlands) where the crew is so active upon cases of harassment?
> This does not happen in the majority of cases.
Err, this is startling. Either you have some kind of figures or several examples, or (which seems more probable) your assumption that 'a majority of cases' is not dealt with appropriatedely does not refelct on reality or observation but solely on some severly ideologically driven wish that this is the case. Obviously, it must be questioned wether people who try to carve a reality where even more harassment takes place than what already happens, have any right to call themselves 'progressive' or anti-something-ist at any rate.
> An other form of harassment is perpetrated by ACU
> volunteers, who sometimes use their position as ACU volunteer to
> enable the harassment. There have been instances of harassment by ACU
> volunteers which would fall under the legal definition of rape, or
> attempted rape. These cases are met with denial and secrecy.
Again, this is a very serious accusation, where the writer deliberately blurs the limits between harassment and rape, while calling upon 'legal definitions' to mask the deliberate bluring. Without entering into details about the dutch legal system when it comes to harassment or rape (it admittedly has a rather poor record in absolute terms, but some deem it far better than many other countries), what is striking here is that this accusation of harassment carries the very same mark of 'secrecy' that it denounces. If the supposed cases have been denied and fall under the legal definition of attempted rape, I'm sure you would have acted upon it, wouldn't you? Or at least you would denounce them now? But no, you too choose to keep them secret. Pity.
> Lack of political awareness Despite ACU being set up as a political
> centre where party-politics are not welcome, and still advertises
> itself that way, there is a severe lack of political awareness
> amongst volunteers. These volunteers argue on a regular basis in
> favour of nights of political parties, or discriminatory political
> groups, who argue ACU should be a place open for everybody so should
> also host nights which explain why discrimination “makes sense”.
Please elaborate? It seems very good that these arguments are talked about over and over. And as much as I myself dislike party politics, I definitely deem it a good idea to debate amongst ourselves why we dislike them or not. If you are such an authority that you can judge upon others' state of political awareness, then for sure you must be able to come up with a better strategy to explain what's wrong with party politics.
> Finances There is a lot of secrecy about finances. The books are not
> presented when asked for at the meeting. The purchase prices of
> drinks are not provided when asked for in meetings. The costs of the
> huge amount of expensive lighting (there is more in ACU then in
> Tivoli which is way larger) are unclear except for the people buying
> those lights. The mortgage is said to be really high, but hardly any
> volunteer actually knows how high. It is unclear to most ACU
> volunteers how a volunteer-run (so no wages to be paid) place with
> prices comparable to any other bar does not make huge amounts of
> money which could for example be used for political activities.
Actually, after reading the whole text, this is possibly the only thing that I can relate to. So you are volunteering somewhere and you'd like more insight in the finances. Fair enough. But should the finances be made public or should everyone be able to know everything about it and why? Could it be that ACU has a complicated financial structure that's intertwined with Strowis and 'upstairs', and that different subgroups have a rather financial autonomy, with good reasons? If you've been volunteering at ACU, you sure know more about this, and if you don't say a word about it to your readers how do you expect them to support your call for 'less secrecy'?
Well, good luck with making this point at the volunteers meeting. I really don't understand why doing a call-out on Indymedia for random people to come to the monthly meeting would solve this specific problem.
In conclusion, I may say that what distresses me most in the call-out, is the heavy use of generic concepts that I (and I'm sure many Indymedia readers) immediately feel solidary with (anti-racism, against homophobia, etc), without delivering any clue whatsoever on what exactly happened and without proposing anything to deal with other than 'come to the volunteers meeting, where you are not invited'. For those of use who actually take such issues serious, it's obvious that such a call-out brings more damage to our struggles than anything else. It also damages the ACU. Upon reading carefully, it seems to do so only for reasons that lie much more in the personality and in the individual ideological beliefs of the writer(s) than in any serious anti-racist or progressive, liberating struggle. I can only hope the ACU will deal generously with so much anger and frustration, and that we'll all meet some day on the barricades, doing something really useful.
Thanks for this reply.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I was distressed over this 'rant'. (I like the ACU altough I don't go there much.) But your reply made it more clear to me and hopefully others, that the posting/call-out is a rather irresponsable one and seems to me a more effective way to alienate the ACU (and it's volunteers) from anti-authoritarian/anti-capitalist struggles then to maintain the space for them.
The callout has been
The callout has been publicised anonymously. The reason for that is the atmosphere in ACU where people fear the reaction for open criticism. The assumption that it is very few people is wrong. if it were so few people the discussion wouldn't be so big.
It was a wise choice not to go into individual cases. Apparently it would not be your choice. Going into individual cases online tends to spiral out of control. The expectation is that more details and possibly individual cases will be discussed the 6th.
ACU has stated they object to a public meeting. This is part of the lack of accountability ACU wants to take. There is no reason to respect this. How the meeting will go will depend highly on the behaviour of all people attending. Hopefully this meeting will be a fresh start for ACU where people will work on all the present problems.
The people who are untouchable because of their positions of power aren't only criticized for outdated routines, but also for being part of many of the other problems described. The fact that you call on people to become part of the problem by gaining seniority shows how you miss the point. Also people in a position of seniority should be open for criticism. The nuance that not everybody in a position of power had malicious intent to end up in that position is misread by you as saying they are willingless victims of a process.
There is no unwillingness to master skills by ACU-volunteers there is active discouragement of this by the people who have those skills. This is done by both not answering training requests and over complicating and frequently changing things. The fact that you can't imagine how there can be secrecy around the ordering of drinks points out how bad the situation in ACU is that even that problem has developed.
The problems mentioned are experienced by lots of people. There are frequent conversations by people experiencing these problems. These conversations are impossible in ACU however. Amongst the verbal abuse is name calling and cursing at people. The fact that problems are denied because they are to serious is startling. Again: discussing individual cases online tends to spiral out of control.
The public debate about ACU might be perceived as more aggressive than overshouting one another in meetings. The alternative seems to be accepting ACU will no longer be a place for activists and activist groups.
If you want a list of racist slurs, there are plenty online. I am not writing one here.
Strange that you see an anti-discrimination statement as "zelfspot". Some people tried to reduce discrimination by having an anti-discriminatory message clearly visible in ACU. Sadly that has been sabotaged by other volunteers. I agree it's rather strange this was not mentioned in the first post.
The fact that there are some rare cases where ACU doesn't tolerate harassment makes it OK that the normal situation is that harassment is tolerated in ACU? There are no statistics on harassment in ACU, but any friday or saturday you will see a lot of it in ACU. This is widely known around Utrecht.
About the disbelieve over harassment and rape in ACU: Again: discussing individual cases online tends to spiral out of control, especially in these subjects.
It is sad to hear that finances are more important than physical and emotional abuse.
It is sad that ACU facilitates a lot of the wrongs we fight against in mainstream society. If you want more details educate yourself, talk to people from Utrecht, come to the meeting the 6th. A large part of activism is coming to places where you are not invited to right the wrongs, lets do that within the movement too! Lets fight not fight the messengers, but the sources of the problems in ACU.
power versus power?
From my position as someone who only vaguely knows ACU (but who also feels interpellated, like the Original Poster) i would say it's really sad that there are such big problems at ACU, but also it's almost inevitable that projects do develop such disputes over time. The key thing is then how to resolve them and I agree with a lot of what this original post says. We as a movement generally (whatever that means!) need to have more introspection on this.
Every individual context is different but there are broad structural issues here which of course i can recognise from social centres i have been involved with. I imagine the fact that this discussion regarding ACU has moved to indymedia and facebook shows the depth of antagonism which already exists, but the dramatic nature of the statement did make me also question its perspective. I want to assume good faith but throwing around serious accusations without evidence makes it hard for me to do so. If people are serious about destroying non-useful hierarchies I applaud that, but then the way that this is done is crucial.
"Going into individual cases online tends to spiral out of control."
Errr i would say things are spiralling out of control pretty well anyway.
If people are serious about trying to make ACU a better place then good luck to them, if they are mobilising issues such as racism just as a power play, then that will probably end in tears for everyone.
I for sure won't be there, i hope the planned meeting is constructive!
While discrimination and all
While discrimination and all that kind of thing should be ended, I think lots off indymedia readers agree to that. The problem is all we have as evidence this is happening in the ACU is your word and that of other on your side.
This is problematical because of a couple of reasons. Examples are not provided because then there is a possibility of spiraling out of control. This is understandable of course. But it makes it hard to judge from a distance. Some examples that are given make it even harder. Removing a mail list without checking with others may be a bad move but to call it "(borderline) fascism" is really over the top. That doesn't inspire much confidence in other general accusations of sexism and racism. (And people really shouldn't be throwing words like fascism around unless actual fascism is involved).
The fact that you call the removal of the longer sign sabotage by other volunteers. While the poster you're responding to is under the impression that the longer sign was replaced with a shorter one after debate in the collective. This is again one of those points where your accusation(sabotage) starts to look over the top or at least makes it seem something more nuanced is going on.
This is compounded by the pretty childish way of handling the whole thing. Spreading false statements on behalf of the ACU doesn't seem very constructive in resolving the issues. An open meeting may be a good solution but at least be open and honest about who you are and especially who you are not. (I don't mean you have to give your names or something like that but at least don't say you are the ACU. Even saying we believe we are the real ACU and the more entrenched ACU'ers are 'fake', while explaining the conflict would be better).
I thought the critical thoughts of the potential supporter were a great way of voicing some of the problems with this whole business. At least for outsiders. The statements made don't really create the urge to go all the way to Utrecht to help stamp out some sexism and racism. It doesn't feel like you'll be doing that if you go. It looks more like you'll probably end up supporting some people in a power struggle.
As a conclusion I can only agree with the conclusion of the original poster.
Wouldn't it be better to try
Wouldn't it be better to try to explain the situation better when someone takes the trouble of explaining how you come across to them. Instead of defending not explaining it properly. I really care deeply about this situation and would like to help out but I agree with the original poster that the call out is very vague en seems more aimed at offending enemies then try to get friends informed and involved. If this was your aim, then fine. But I would rather help out a group who want to do something constructive with the Acu then punish the wicket..
Even less convincing. Pity.
Another ex-volunteer? I doubt. But since you chose anonymity (without explaining why), I can only guess. Anyway.
> The callout has been publicised anonymously. The reason for that is
> the atmosphere in ACU where people fear the reaction for open
> criticism.
No. The call-out has been publicised anonymously because the author doesn't seriously want to take responsability for what he or she is
claiming. Just admit it instead of trying to blame 'the atmosphere in the ACU'. This is an embarassing way of trying to avoid answering the critique.
> The assumption that it is very few people is wrong. if it
> were so few people the discussion wouldn't be so big.
Actually I don't think the discussion is that big. So if we were to follow your logics, I would now be allowed to think it is indeed a call-out of only a very few people. Publicising a similar text several times on Indymedia doesn't make a discussion big. Generating buzz on Face Book doesn't make a discussion big. Using big words like racism, fascism, attempted rape, trauma, secrecy, doesn't make the discussion big - what it does do is trigger the attention of leftist or anti-authoritarian people who read this call-out. But the call-out fails to deliver any convincing details or to propose any alternatives or even hint at some possible way to solve this conflict, so we do not see not much discussion developing at all. It remains painfully obvious that this is the work of only a few isolated people or even one individual. Now, the critique voiced in the call-out could be nevertheless just as valid - but pretending that you represent many people when you don't is not only weakening your argumentation, it is simply a wrong thing to do. Just take responsability for your dissenting opinions and voice them as your own instead of hiding behind the evil ACU or some hypothetical numbers of sympathisers that you wish you had.
> It was a wise choice not to go into individual cases. Apparently it
> would not be your choice. Going into individual cases online tends to
> spiral out of control. The expectation is that more details and
> possibly individual cases will be discussed the 6th.
Calling out on Indymedia for people to go crashing the door of the monthly volunteers meeting is a deliberate attempt at spiraling things out of control. People who want to achieve things with meetings plan those meetings and send proposals, they don't "expect details to be discussed". Stating that the choice you made to not go into individual cases is "a wise choice" is a ridiculous way of trying to avoid discussion on this point.
> ACU has stated they object to a public meeting. This is part of the
> lack of accountability ACU wants to take. There is no reason to
> respect this. How the meeting will go will depend highly on the
> behaviour of all people attending. Hopefully this meeting will be a
> fresh start for ACU where people will work on all the present
> problems.
No. ACU didn't comply to your one-sided decision of turning an internal, regular volunteers meeting into a random public rally. It's downright false to blame them for your 'lack of accountability'. Trying to turn things in this way shows an alarming machiavellist tendency that definitely has nothing to do with anti-authoritarian, emancipating politics.
> The people who are untouchable because of their positions of power
> aren't only criticized for outdated routines, but also for being part
> of many of the other problems described. The fact that you call on
> people to become part of the problem by gaining seniority shows how
> you miss the point.
No. It simply shows, or says, that I strongly disagree with you. It also questions the use of a complex concept such as 'gaining seniority' without ever giving a clue as to what you actually mean with it and why you apparently see it as something bad. Saying that I miss the point is a poor way of trying to avoid giving an answer.
> Also people in a position of seniority should be
> open for criticism. The nuance that not everybody in a position of
> power had malicious intent to end up in that position is misread by
> you as saying they are willingless victims of a process.
Funnily enough, it was perfectly read by me. Now you try to do as if you don't get the nuance of my analysis of your argumentation method. I'm afraid I read it very well indeed, and I rethorically put the question wether you really meant to say they are willingess victims. Instead of saying I have been misreading, you could admit that I was asking a pertinent question, and try to answer why you chose to describe the phenomenon of power-positions in this way. Could it be for instance that you have no evidence whatsoever that these 'powerful seniors' are misusing their power, but that you still need a way of describing their position that makes them look suspicious? Alas, I think it's pretty clear why you avoid answering here: presumably you are not in a position of seniority, so you find that you do not need to be open for criticism.
> There is no unwillingness to master skills by ACU-volunteers there is
> active discouragement of this by the people who have those skills.
> This is done by both not answering training requests and over
> complicating and frequently changing things. The fact that you can't
> imagine how there can be secrecy around the ordering of drinks points
> out how bad the situation in ACU is that even that problem has
> developed.
Does it? Or does it point that you are willing to master skills, but are not willing to make any efforts to actually learn them? Your constant pointing at wrongs in the functioning of the ACU without giving a single example, even up to the point where you fire back the drinks-ordering question as an example of how right you are, is in fact exactly that: actively discouraging your readers from understanding what is going on and over-complicating things on purpose.
> The problems mentioned are experienced by lots of people. There are
> frequent conversations by people experiencing these problems. These
> conversations are impossible in ACU however.
For me as a random Indymedia reader it is impossible to check any of these claims. If you would have chosen to unveil your identity, there could be some kind of assessment for readers wether they trust your authority to make such claims. Now they are just completely unverifable claims without any evidence to support them. Rather unconvincing and not different than any random anonymous rant.
> Amongst the verbal abuse
> is name calling and cursing at people. The fact that problems are
> denied because they are to serious is startling. Again: discussing
> individual cases online tends to spiral out of control.
Again, making heavy accusations anonymously and without giving even a hint at what are the incidents vindicated is the perfect way of spiraling things out of control. If when asked for details you can only manage to describe the alleged verbal abuse as 'name calling and cursing', we are to conclude that again, you chose vague generic description by lack of serious evidence.
> The public debate about ACU might be perceived as more aggressive
> than overshouting one another in meetings. The alternative seems to
> be accepting ACU will no longer be a place for activists and activist
> groups.
Says you. You seem to be adamant that a ACU where your vision is not granted and revered is 'no longer a place for activists'. What about the alternative where people don't accept your insidious ways of making accusations and tearing apart a collective that already has enough problems to deal with, and where ACU does remain a place for activists, who are able to see through your poor argumentation methods? Obviously such an alternative would either mean that you accept evolving your opinions and the way that you try and get your points across within the collective - or, in the worst case, it would mean that you leave the collective. In such case we can only hope that you will at least be honest enough to not go on ranting around about how you have been 'excluded' and 'forced to leave'.
> If you want a list of racist slurs, there are plenty online. I am not
> writing one here.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
> Strange that you see an anti-discrimination statement as "zelfspot".
Do you mean 'strange' as in 'queer'? I'm rather proud of that, then. I also deem 'zelfspot' a quality, really.
> Some people tried to reduce discrimination by having an
> anti-discriminatory message clearly visible in ACU. Sadly that has
> been sabotaged by other volunteers. I agree it's rather strange this
> was not mentioned in the first post.
But you still fail to deliver the whole story about this sign.
> The fact that there are some rare cases where ACU doesn't tolerate
> harassment makes it OK that the normal situation is that harassment
> is tolerated in ACU? There are no statistics on harassment in ACU,
> but any friday or saturday you will see a lot of it in ACU. This is
> widely known around Utrecht.
Again, hiding behind 'things widely known' makes your plea rather untrustworthy. Please come up with a more convincing story. Now you are only feeding those who dismiss complains about harassment by saying that it's a choice to see it everywhere if you want to. I can only hope this is not a deliberate choice of yours, and that you will start making serious work of documenting your claims and reaching out to the ACU volunteers and public about this resilient problem in 'alternative' places.
> About the disbelieve over harassment and rape in ACU: Again:
> discussing individual cases online tends to spiral out of control,
> especially in these subjects.
>
> It is sad to hear that finances are more important than physical and
> emotional abuse.
Yes, it is sad that you choose to give the finances question more weight than the alleged physical or emotional abuse (whatever that may be). After reading this call-out again and reading your answer here, I can only conclude that the only serious claim you have been able to bring forward is the one about the possible lack of transparency regarding the finances. It seems that you don't take harassment and physical violence very serious, since you keep denouncing it generically but consistently avoid putting any work into actually describing it and make it possible for a wider audience to discuss about it.
> It is sad that ACU facilitates a lot of the wrongs we fight against
> in mainstream society. If you want more details educate yourself,
> talk to people from Utrecht, come to the meeting the 6th. A large
> part of activism is coming to places where you are not invited to
> right the wrongs, lets do that within the movement too! Lets fight
> not fight the messengers, but the sources of the problems in ACU.
Interesting that you should think that activism equals 'coming to places where you are not invited to right the wrongs'. Even if I'd see myself as an "activist" (whatever that may be), I definitely do not feel invited by you to the ACU volunteers meeting. Again, I can only hope the ACU will make work of trying to tackle the different problems that arise in a long standing collective - obviously you chose of not being of any help in this process. It is sad and it actually allows people to doubt your politics, even though you claim to be a dedicated anti-everythingist activist, and probably see yourself as such.
ACU in the past ten years..an inside story
After reading some of the critics posted here, I would like to respond and explain why we (meant as ACU people) are at such a point, according to my personal experience.
As I said I have been working in the ACU almost 15 years and have seen enough going on in this place.
I also don't agree with the tone of the call out and I definetly find some of the points very far streched. And I am scheptical about what this meeting will really bring...nevertheless, there are good reasons for it to happen and I do support it.
Often when frustrations reach the top, issues get expressed in unappropriate ways, but it is important that this message finally got out of closed walls.
How did we get to this point?
It did not happen in one day, or in one time. As it was said, routines build up and took root, sometimes without people really aknowledging where they will lead. In this, I think, we are all to blame for letting it go this far. But it is not as we are discussing these issues for the very forst time. Several attempts have been made to change things, to requalize the structure and make it horizontal again. Take my word, it is years we are discussing it..all I can give on the matter is my own account.
In my experience, since this group was formed in 2004, there has been always a tendency to "select" people for tasks of responsibility or for the key stone positions in the ACU, which more and more, in time, became "NOT" accessible for all.
It started from small little things, and grew to the point of creating real managerial positions, obviously very out of place in a collective structure.
Many people stood up to this and not just with critics. People offered to take part of the responsibilities, did work hard for the place and tried to contribute in the sharing of knowledge and information (and not to just to "take over").
There have been endless discussions over these positions of power and how they affect in a negative way a collective structure, demotivating others, creating self appointed managers, how they build up frustrations and so on..many attempts have been made to solve this conflicts internally.
But these attempts always failed, since there are a few people within the ACU (I can count about four or five basically who really hold the strings of the place) that always backed each other up and made a compact front that made it impossible for the collective to really make a break through in this front.
How does this work? How is it possible?
Finances:
There is a small group that holds all information and decisional power over the finances.
They have the books, invoices and administration at their home and do not make them accessible for others, so that everyone is "forced" to go through them to be able to use this information for work. I had this experience when I was busy trying to reconstruct what happened with our lift maintenance company. After six months of "begging" direct information, I gave up.
They hold bank passes and the key to the safe. To access money, you don't go to meetings, you have to go through them.
The collective does not decide anything over investments. The ACU, I esteem, spend something between 100.000 - 150.000 euro in light and sound equipment+maintenance of it in the past 9 years. Seriously, there are more lights and sound stuff that in some commercial disco..
These investments HAVE NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS. What we did discuss, also endless times, is that many ACU volunteers are not happy to work for the techincs team to spend and spand as they please.
We tried everything..reasoning, making appointments, giving budgets. The conclusion has always been the same. These people have their hands on the dough and thay just do what the fuck they want with it.
We never see proper financial reports. The balans is a far away mirage so nobody really has a proper clear inview over the financial state of our company. It's always a vague more or less, expenses are not specified and there are no "toelichting" to the list of costs and incoms.
To change this also has been demanded several times but after ten years we are still waiting to see it happen.
At best, some papers got out at time of high crisis..and then went back in the black pit.
It takes an enormous amount of energy to squeeze simple basic information and to break through this silent obstracism and excuses that you encounter every time you are simply asking for what should be on the table to begin with. So forgive people for not always feeeling to put up with it.
A selected finances group has been formed, a few years ago. But they never got to see any real financial stuff..as I said, there are always milions of little excuses that impeach any real concrete development. Where there's no will, there's no way.
Besides, the ACU administration is seriously amatorial. Having knowledge of book keeping myself, I can only urge that we finally hire someone with proper skills to do this job, which can for one provide us with some transparency over ACU finances and put an end to the privileges that this structure implies.
Self appointed managerial positions:
Some characters like to believe they are actually directing the place.
They behave as if they are in charge and make the rest feel it. If you are doing bar, or anything else, expect someone to walk up to you and tell you what to do, even though you are the one busy with the work, or perfectly capable of handeling yourself.
The comments given are not finalized to improve working together, they are the expression of a self fulfillment from who's placing them on you.
This have a strong impact on all the new volunteers, often intimidated by these attitudes. And they create huge conflicts with the people that are not easily intimidated (I will place myself in this second category, since I told a couple of people to go f... themselves more than once).
Still, they do not stop nor seem to have any understanding of it. Every time you can start all over again, here also having to waste energy and time to contain these people.
In the past ten years, I heard from dozen of volunteers and ex volunteers that they didn't like to work in the ACU in this atmosphere, lots of them even left because of it..
But the more we tried to bring these problematics on the table, the more these people pulls the strings and sits on top of the ACU as their own property.
A practical example.
After the face book message and Indymedia communicate, a couple of people, living upstairs from ACU, went and bought a really expensive lock, with certified keys.
They put the new lock on and in fact this certificate remained in their hands. That, despite all nice bla bla, means that they have the last word on who can or actually cannot get a key from ACU, which is something unheard of. Even claimed it was a collective decision (which was absolutely not).
It is easy to talk about collective decisions when finally only one has the actual power to make it happen..or not.
As a anarchist sympatizer (well, I consider myself an anarchist, but don't want to go in the details of my political believes) I think it's ridiculus to pretend that there can be a democracy, or equality, or how you want to call it when the means of power are all in the same hands. Because finally I can agree or disagree, but I will never be in the position to make anything happen without the approval of who's holding these means..
And this is the history on how few people came to control the place. By taking little piece by little piece, forcing things through, discussing decisions afterwards and always cooking some nice reasonable story to justify prevarications.
When too much pressure was put on turning around a decision huge dramas and distractions are created around different issues..and the decision go through, even though many do not agree with them.
For who's interested to know, the new lock didn't make it to last half an hour on the door. But do we have to come to this?
ACU meetings
After 20 years of participation in several groups, collectives, squats, I would describe ACU meetings as one of the most undemocratic and hypocritical experience ever.
The organ of the meeting, which should be the space of encounter of people and ideas, where decisions are made together, are a farce.
We live in a bureaucracy of rules and small unspoken appointments, where to me appears clear only one thing: decisions go through only when certain people agree. If not, they do not go through.
Of course things are never put on the table like this..there are many manipulative ways to play this game.
I can bring many examples of it, but the list would be endless.
Just one that came up after months of discussing how to make decisions: we have a written appointment about benefits that litereally says "a proposal is brought to the meeting and then people can agree/disagree with it". Amnesty international group asked us to have a benefit, many people disagreed, the benefit took place anyway.
On the other hand, on different issues, the same disagreement but from different people counts as a veto on making things happen.
And every time, afterwards, comes the nice explanation why in that case is so, and in the other case so...
Frustrations build up to the roof and nothing changes.
I find it hard to stand up to this unless by playing the very same game, which i do not like.
But making appointments together seems to me an impossibility cause people are simply not respecting them and problems or issues are not discussed in an objective and honest way.
To be completely fair, I would add that there has been a strong incapability from everyone, myself included, to address this problem in a proper way.
Incapabilty mostly to act upon it, which becomes difficult when you share a place together but have not the same accessibility to information, money or real decisional power.
Political views:
Here I have the biggest critics on what has been communicated in the posts.
I don't see nazis walking around the ACU, and as far as I know there are no rapists amongst us either.
What I do se, though, is that people are welcome to join the ACU collective despite their political believes. If they can deliver the job, it's all fine.
For me, a collective that acts on this criteria cannot be taken serious in the hold on to certain political positions, as we do in our ABC booklet. You can find there a nice description on how the ACU is supporting small independent groups, is pro squatting, alternative, political left outside governmental structure and so on. This is what we, as ACU, declare to stand for.
Then, we actually work in an environment in which people believe that police is there for your own protection, or that the Ubica people getting arrested after resisting the eviction just got what they deserved. And these people are voicing their opinions as part of the ACU, cause they also work there.
So on which bases and for what are we all calling ourselves a collective, when we do not share any basic ground of political understanding?
The ACU should not be a black blok place in my opinion. I am not in favor of ultra feminism or including people only when they wear an anarchist patch on their jacket. But to ovethrow completely the meaning and accept views that sadly remind me of the VVD party is something completely different.
There are opinions that are in conflict and contradiction with each other and are creating a fracture within our group which is getting without solution.
I also cannot bring myself to compromise about "loving police".
Conclusions:
I will attend the meeting on the 6th and I have no fear of signing this letter. What I say here I already said before within the ACU.
I just hope that there will be an active participation and most of all that people will focus on how to act upon this unsustainable situation before we loose this place for good.
I will bring some proposals on serious changes that are needed if anything is to get solved.
I hope to see many faces there and that people will realize that as it is important to bring this structure down, it is even more important to replce it with something clean and concrete.
That means also being serious about taking responsibility back and working together to keep the ACU alive.
Margherita
tha
Thanks a lot for taking the effort of writing this up. To me (as an outsider) this is much clearer than the 'Facebook call-out'. At least it is clearly written in a honest way.
I understand that you write what you feel comfortable to write about, and probably chose to not write about a number of things that are mentionned in the 'call-out' because you don't feel you have much to say about it. But if it's not asking too much I'd like to clarify 2 points that I found particularly disturbing: would you assess (as a person involved in ACU, not as a self-proclaimed authority on this topic) that there are indeed many cases of 'sexual harassment' in the ACU? Would you say that there are many racist incidents (where e.g. people get called racist names)? I am willing to imagine that with the power structures that you describe, things like this tend to develop easier. It's just that the call-out was so blatantly tendentious and anonymously agressive that I started doubting every of the allegations that it carries.
As far as racism, sexism,
As far as racism, sexism, homophobia and harassment goes my experience is as follows:
There is racism, sexism, homophobia and harassment perpetrated by customers every Friday and most Saturday nights. This will always happen in a public bar in city centre. The problem is that the atmosphere and previous experiences in ACU makes customers feel they should not stand up against this behaviour. This was said to me about every 2nd week by someone else when I still came into ACU and offered support to people who got discriminated or harassed in ACU. (As a male I only get harassed once a year in ACU, there has never been support.)
There has been racist slurs between volunteers, this does not happen on a regular basis, but when people state that they don't like being described in racist terms they get ridiculed and ignored. The people who use racist slurs claim they are perfectly fine, because they are "accurate descriptions".
Before talking about harassment I will explain when I use the word Harassment in this text. When I say harassment I mean deliberate touching of intimate body parts, cornering people to force intimacy upon them, or not excepting "NO" for an answer unless there is al thorough and rational explanation for the refusal.
Harassment between volunteers does happen at least on a monthly basis. (This claim is both based on personal observation and people telling their experiences in convidence.) The rare cases of harassment between volunteers which are discussed at the meetings are ridiculed and even when there are several witnesses the perpetrator is believed and the victim encounters a lot of disbelieve and hostility of the collective.
How much homophobia and other discrimination is perpetrated by ACU-volunteers is unclear to me, I only know about it through hearsay, but I fear the worst.
personal opinion
Will give my personal reply also then. Though I don't want to participate in some public mud-throwing, so please keep it respectful.
For those who don't know me, I've been working in the ACU since 1997. I've been doing administration and finances since 2004. I'm probably one of the people viewed at as having a power position.
To explain a bit of history about my involvement. Since the legalisation until 2004, ACU was mainly run by a group of people having a Melkert-baan (social funded job) and I was volunteering to help out. In 2004 this project was ended and the ACU was facing a closure. As a group of active volunteers, we decided to try and run the place on a strictly voluntary basis. Since I had a little experience in finances, me and three others took the responsibility over that part. After two years, two of them had quit and till 2010 we were doing it mostly with the two of us, with some help of few others.
In 2010, a group of people posted heavy criticism on our position in the ACU. In my view, this was done in a rather aggressive way, at least by part of the group. Our reaction was probably pretty defensive at first. There were also people who wanted to solve things in a more constructive way, and after a series of meetings we came to conclusions on how to solve some of the problems.
After the storm was over, things unfortunately fell back to "normal" pretty quickly. Some things changed though, I transferred my key to the safe and the tasks of daily finances to a third person, there came some help with the administration, we're having financial meetings twice a year and there is an online repository of financial documents. Some of the "old" problems are coming back now, since most people involved have quit unfortunately. I am training new people for the administration at the moment, to try and make new start. Some more involvement is definitely needed.
Some of the problems mentioned in several posts I can recognise. Some documents like the "balans" are lagging behind, this is because the administration is checked up and finalised by an accountant and I'm often waiting for her to finalise it. I can make a balans myself, but it won't be official nor accurate. Regarding missing papers, I normally have a part at home because the office is more a hang-out for people to drink beer and smoke cigarettes than a healthy environment to work. It's true they should better be kept at ACU. Yes, there is racism and sexism like in any public place. It ain't pretty or good or should be accepted, but throwing everybody out to create a safe space ain't gonna work either. I know many people are taking efforts, but it is fighting a big rotten core in our society and it ain't gonna change overnight. For many people it's a learning process and approaching them in agressive ways with high standards will only alienate them from the process. I personally think the learning process is more important than a safe space, to certain limits of course.
Some problems I don't recognise. I don't have a power position because I do administration. It's recording facts after they happened and doesn't involve much decison making about them. I don't have access to any money either, a random person behind the bar can spend more money than me and they actually do. But I do know the ACU inside-out after many years on the work-floor, I know what to expect or not and it gives me a certain advantage. I'm not as active as I used to be though. We are not undemocratic, the disputed Amnesty benefit actually got refused the year after, to my personal disappointment I must say. But in any democracy, you can't always have it your way. It's not that we never reach consensus, but sometimes we don't indeed. ACU is not non-political, but it is not strictly a "political centre" either and it has never been or advertised that way. It's a centre that mixes many things and can only exist as such. There ain't a place I know where so many people have key to the front door either, which sometimes means you need to change a lock indeed. I'm sure many people will have a key in no-time, the certificate is just a sales-farce.
Regarding power positions. I often noticed that people think they can run the ACU from a meeting. It won't work, ACU is being run from the work-floor. You can decide whatever you like in a meeting, if the people on the work-floor don't agree, there is no consensus and it often won't happen either. The meeting is just there to facilitate consensus, not as a power structure on it's own. This is true for anyone, whether you have a "power position" or not. It can be frustrating sometimes, though I always liked it as being typically ACU. And please don't think I agree to everything that happens, I just learned to live with it, which can sometimes be difficult too. Power positions mostly exists because of a higher involvement or better understanding of the process.
About the disputed lights. There is indeed a large amount of lights, but when I look at the costs, it's not that high. It facilitates the activities that generate most of the income and the costs are way less than at Tivoli or Ekko. Much of it is second-hand, rented or otherwise bargained for. There is somewhat of a distorted view at it, because most of the people who need it like dj's and organisers of parties, normally don't come to meetings. And yes, I understand that if you run a kitchen or organise info-nights, you don't need many party-lights. Don't need them myself either, but other people do. I suggest people look a bit more at the ratio of what it costs and how much money it makes, and try to think what would happen to ACU if we didn't have all these "stupid" parties. It would be bankrupt in no time. Yes, that's the disadvantage of legalisation and ACU is no longer a squat. If it had not been legalised, it would have been lost.
Last but not least. If you want to change things, don't expect the people stuck in their positions to do it for you. They are overloaded with tasks and responsibilties already. Making prososals, having meetings and raising ideas is a good start, but it is nothing more than a slight start. You finally have to Do It Yourself, by taking responsibility and initiative. Fortunately, I still see many people in the ACU who understand this concept, but it's also missing a lot of times.
I could have endless discussions, but I'll leave it with this. Feel free to ask me anything in real life.
response
first I would like to rspond about the harrassment and racist issue, since I have been asked a direct question.
about harrassment yes, there are episodes of it which unfortunately happen a lot especially in weekend nights. i guess this is a common problem indeed with lots of horeca places.
personally i do not think that the best respons would be just to ban everyone. people need to be educated to a more respectful culture and the so called "power of definition" concept leaves me very dubious about achieving this difficult task.
what I do see happening amongst ACU, which I think is the problem brought up in the call out, is that these episodes do not really get discussed on contents, but more on who's the "perpetrator" and who's the "victim" (terms that are not my favourite, but I will use them to simplify).
if the perpetrator is someone we don't know, easy to target, then it is easy to ban him/her.
otherwise often people hides the head in the sand and pretends that it ain't that bad.
if we want to make a real difference in the outside world, we cannot ignore this. we have to start amongst ourselves in the first place to create a space where people feel safe and respected. and not grant special statuses just because you work there, which was my point also about political believes.
same goes for racist or desrespectful behaviour on similar issues. to say the very least, I would expect people that made borderline remarks which really offended others to apologize and show an opening towards this learning process, instead of just going on like nothing happened.
this is not how it goes, though, leaving a heavy trail of unsolved frustrations and the feeling that we can't really rely on our group for real support.
many people had this experience, including myself, and I wouldn't feel sure to go to a meeting to ask for help either, since i know that immediately people would take sides not on the issue itself but on personal likes and dislikes.
just to mention an example, I have been called a fascist on the ACU google group and nobody seemed bothered by it..on the other hand, when a much smaller remark was made about some of the above mentioned "high" people, all hell broke loose.
exactly, issues are not pointed out on contents, but on "who" you are within the ACU..that speaks by itself.
to respond to michiel, i want to point out that your explanation falls exactly in my previous description..everything seems pretty straight forward, clear, reasonable how you put it so that suddenly people start dobting what is it all about, then?
but how you put it, ain't really how things went and are.
there is a real, huge problem with the ACU finances, which despite financial meetings and all are still as non transparent as they can get.
sure, at least we get to see "some" papers now and then. but they do not explain much because they miss any detailed information over the expenses and neither we get proper explanations from you or other people that are busy with the administration.
and you say it yourself, balans we don't get at all, which means we miss half the info to begin with.
I totally agree with the DIY concept, that is why the finances group was created. but first of all, this group was not open to all that wanted to join. and moreover, despite asking for months access to REAL financial information, all these people got around to do is put the dagstaat in the computer, which is the basic step number one. they had no access to any "higher" level of information, nor the actual program of Cash, where they could get this information directly.
the idea of putting the Cash program in the ACU office died out after six months of you not being able to find out who had the passwords to install it.
key of the safe and the payments books where given to whom? who is the new finances group?
it puzzles me how things always seem to be open, and transparent, but when I go to take a closer look on them, it turnes out WE actually didn't really decide much at all.
besides, we had several experience on how financial information has been purspusefully misused, in and outside meetings.
it would be a long list, but I will bring up a small example that can also make people understand the adversity to ACU meetings.
It is about a dispute that came out over the red bons (monthly cards for free meals given to volunteers, that ACU pays back to the kitchen crew. I work in the kitchen crew btw).
just after we started talking about transparency in the ACU finances, and when we were almost getting somewhere, the bashing of the people involved with the beginning critics was initiated.
issues totally non relevant with the transparency topic were brough up in what i would describe as a very convenient manner for some. attention was suddenly directed to this new topics and, strangely enough!, away from the financial issues of the ACU.
the discussion degenerated for months, to the point of me being publically accused of "stealing" money from ACU by claming huge amount of bons money back from ACU. the person in question, throwing this accusation, was plently supported by you (michiel) during the meeting where this revelation came out. but what I know for a fact is that, as ACU administrator, you were in possensions (at your home) of all the invoices that I present at the end of every year which would definetly disprove this accusation. if put on the table. but nothing wast put on the table and despite my effords to come out "clean", the doubt floated for a long time around the kitchen people. which served a double purpose:
- it distracted attention and drained energy away from other topics;
- it discredited our credibility in front of the collective and that diminished the value of any claim we made.
I bring this up because it is a perfect example of how information (or withold of information) can be used in a dishonest manipulative way. how lack of transparency creates fractures and can support lies.
also a perfect example on why people "fear" meetings and to voice dissent. you never know what's coming up next and how you will be hit back. (I think by now I developed an elefant skin so not much will affect me...what else can they throw at me that hasn't been said already? ;-)
as a book keeper (which I am) all I can say is this: when you talk finances, papers on the table are all that matters . there are no more or less, maybes, or I think and in this case...there are numbers, which are accountable for.
and when you withold information to play internal political games of credit and discretid, I cannot consider you a honest, transparent administrator.
most of all, what I see as a real joke is how the issue about technics is presented.
for all outsiders, I want to clarify that people in ACU are not crazy. we do not think we should dance in the dark or play acustic music. there are certain expenses that cannot be avoided if we want to have a venue that guests concerts or dance nights, which are basically our main source of income. so that is not the topic here.
the real issue is the status that technics have within the ACU and how they can freely access money while everyone else have to go through meetings to do the same, or invest big sums into new equipment.
at least most people feels like we SHOULD do that, since it seems the only way to decide things together as a group.
this problem, and the attitude of technics, have been on top of the list for meeting agenda points for years.
as i said, we tried to make tons of appointments with them. even discussed a fixed budget for basic expenses (tape, screw, light bulbs) which nobody want to take over and over at meetings.
BUT we also have been very clear that investments in new equipment have to be brought up and discuss on forehand for several good reasons.
first, we have to decide together if we can efford them or maybe we want to spend the money in other ways. second, it helps understanding what is actually happening in other sections of the ACU. third, it should improve contact and communication between the groups.
this has been plainfully denied as not being an option. we can't expect it. or promised and not done.
nevertheless that little profit we make is basically eaten up by lights and sound equipment.
true, the expenses are not incredibly high compared to Tivoli..but for us they still are.
besides, technics crew are strongly supporting the people holding the administration. in every conflictual issue of a certain relevance they packed together as a front, cause certainly when this administration gets out of that hands, privileges are over for them. not that they will be "punished", simply they will have to go through the same procedure as everyone else and learn to make decisions together.
for someone that want to voice a dissent to this status quo and work on a more equalitarial level, it is very hard to face a compact group of people that presents such a wall against you.
I hope that this will clarify some more.
I feel the discussion better continue in person, so I hope to see many people on the 6th.
take care,
Margherita