Critical Mass does not “just happen” to get in the way of law and order – it was designed to disrupt it.

I value “community” over “democracy” and do not believe that the enjoyment of a few should be able to infringe regularly, and with no purpose but “communal fulfillment” – which can be found, again, in countless other ways, on the many.

Again – it’s apparent that CMass is purely a selfish act by the participants, and hiding behind “democracy” or “social progress” does not change that.

And with that, I am closing comments on this entry.

There are two clear, reasonably well written posts preceding, but are in no way addressed by your question. I tried to express earlier the communal and democratic appeal of Critical Mass, which you constantly reduce to “personal enjoyment” and then even the term “entitled” is anti-democratic.

You say there are “infinite ways to find personal fulfillment” and you’re totally right on the mark with that. What’s missing are ways to find free communal fulfillment. Critical Mass is a rare free communal event. In a democracy access to power is equal, there is no need to produce a title. Critical Mass is an expression of this social alternative, and in our current totalizing system, an alternative can only be confrontational. I think it’s necessary for democracy to create the ability to say, “We are here.” Critical Mass presents an alternative. And I think the issue you have is with the alternative. There are people in our social body who think differently, and in our representational system, they don’t really exist, but for a few hours once a month, the last Friday of every month to be specific, Downtown, between the hours of 5:30 and 8 or so. Would you like to pretend that difference doesn’t exist? And that the difference will not sometimes express itself in blocked flows?

Critical Mass is about more than traffic, it’s an alternative form of social organizing, free and democratic, which just happens to get in the way of law and order.

I think liberal capitalists need to understand that their order impinges on the enjoyment, more the full development of life of a multitude that desires that full development. This desirous multitude is without access to media of power and money(capital/resources) towards the process of communal and human development, and every once in a while, through different channels, this multitude will make itself known. This is the world we live in for now.
Rodger Levesque´s last blog ..Mid-Summer…

I do not happen to think anyone is entitled to actively disrupt anyone else’s life in such a significant way when there are nearly infinite other ways to find personal fulfillment and enjoyment, and inact social change, if that’s your schtick.

My “heart explodes” all the time and my life is indeed full of joy. And I do not have to impinge on anyone else’s enjoyment of life to find fulfillment.

Another concern is the flouting of law. Law is an institution of power, which in this case is confronted by a democratic multitude. But even this concern is weak. Critical Mass is a procession, like a parade or a funeral, a celebration of cycling in the city and as such it stays together. I don’t think the maintenance of a procession is too far outside accepted social behaviour.

I want to clear up something Darren wrote earlier about definitions, because I think we’re working with different definitions and not really understand each other.

Darren wrote:
“Just to be clear, you’re saying that if I choose to “ally myself with” a democratically-elected power, I’m a fascist? Does that make every citizen who voted for a government in power a fascist? That’s a peculiar point of view, particularly given the definitions of ‘democracy’ and ‘facism’.”

The definition of democracy on wikipedia includes this: “Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’, there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and have equal access to power.”

By the standards in this definition we do not live in a democracy, and I’ve noticed over the past month that most of the people opposing Critical Mass are arguing under the assumption that we do live in a democracy or under a democratic government, when it would be more referent to our reality to speak of living in an oligarchy or under a pastoral government. I think it’s this confusion of definitions that places Critical Mass outside the notion of democracy in public perception (a confused public that also erroneously perceives itself as democratic.)

I wrote “allying yourself with power against those confronting power is” fascist. I said nothing of a democratically-elected power, because the terms cancel each other out. The creation of a hierarchy is the end result of elections, and hierarchic power structures are not democratic (by definition which requires equality) I’ll try to be more clear this time around because I think these definitions are very important for bridging the gap in perception that has been expressed in this thread.

Because of the difference in power between those who rule and those who are ruled, this can be seen when thousands of people are systematically excluded from the decision making process, (don’t confuse an exclusive decision making process with democracy, it’s an oligarchy, let’s call things by their name) the excluded are confronted with a decision making power, a power that must be contested.

The contestability of freedoms written or desired is the basis of confrontational politics. So you can check any list you want but when a multitude appears on bicycles exercising that freedom you’ve got your reality.

This debate was started by a police warning and monopoly capitalist media sensationalism. How are these institutions of power democratically elected? How then is public perception important to consider if it has been manipulated by these powers? We often see what we know, and we know how power informs us. Why do the people who ride in critical mass have such a different perception of the meaning of the event than those who read the Province or the Sun? (or who side with the police force?) Critical Mass is definitely confronting institutional and capitalist power. Things are not the way they are for no reason. To try to change things is to confront those reasons.

Those reasons concern the systems of money and power; systems which in no way can be referred to as democratic. These systems have criminalized dissent/protest. So yes, Critical Mass operates outside the system, democratically mobilizing in public.

My point of view may be peculiar to liberal capitalists who’ve accepted the misnomer of democracy, but there is a huge body of work called Critical Theory written by Jews who fled from Nazi Germany, this stuff is definitely the point of view of outsiders. And the link I put to the guide to a non-fascist life is definitely worth reading. And then there’s Noam Chomsky, he’s also written extensively on the illusion of democracy. Point is, if we called things what they are and restarted this conversation, which I’ll say it again, was started by the institutional powers of the police and capitalist media, Critical Mass would be the democratic expression, opposed by non-democratic, oligarchical, capitalist, armed power.
Which side are you on?
Rodger Levesque´s last blog ..Mid-Summer…

My feeling, though, is that that the profound experience of community, self-determination, and citizen empowerment that the ride generates would change those negative perceptions. There is an understanding that often comes from experience, that simply cannot be conveyed in words or fully apprehended intellectually. For example, you can read all about sex but never truly “know” it until you’ve experienced it. Same with childbirth. You cannot know the power and the beauty and the deeply humbling humanity of bringing a child into this world until you have done so. No matter how much you “know” about the subject.

I urge you to attend a ride, maybe with one of your neighbours, co-workers or friends, and then see what you think. And it’s not like whaling. From the various commentary you’ve heard and read, surely you must appreciate that there are other interpretations of Critical Mass – aside from the illegality and inconvenience that opponents get stuck on. The thing about human social life is that it’s highly complex, never black and white, and thus difficult to navigate. There can be more than one right answer. There can be a number of “good” directions to take, though they be contradictory.

One commenter on Luke’s blog described how his heart explodes during the mass! When was the last time your heart exploded with joy and beauty and a sense of the possible? I don’t need to go whaling to know I’m against it, either. But I do want to support progressive, positive expressions of community. I’m not going to try to change your very settled minds: I would bet the experience would change it for you. I’d love to hear an honest, open minded report from any of Critical Mass’s opponents after they’ve actually been on one!
KateM´s last blog ..Critical Mass: Occupying the Lion’s Gate Bridge

As Luke said: “I agree with part of Darren’s closing point, “Participating in CM means systematically disregarding laws and other citizen’s rights”. It sure does.”

So Luke at least (though I suspect others feel the same) believes its okay to systematically disregard the rights of everyone else trying to use the streets, once a month, so he can have a nice bike ride with thousands of his closest friends.

If that’s the case, I argue that everyone else’s perception of CMassers as a bunch of selfish, narcissistic, entitled bullies (or at least people who choose to act like that once a month) is entirely correct, and it will be a cold day in hell before I align myself with them by participating in a ride.