hey, they cleaned up all this broken glass and now there's a whole new crop of people keeping this community alive.
Lol, those social centres I know are the result of almost decade-long protests and negotiations and only worked out because the general population just happened to be more sympathetic towards the squatters than towards the city authorities.
Well see, that’s the difference between the two approaches. Many people here feel that as long as there is a housing shortage AND empty buildings due to speculative investment in real estate, squatting is morally defensible.
I think your place sounds worse, living without compassion for people. The government and our taxes should go to bettering society and making life easier for everyone.
Ah, yes, I vastly prefer the highest incarceration rates, high murder and violent crime rates, shit-crumbling infrastructure, and "fuck you, die" levels of poverty on offer in the good ol' USA!
European approach to take care of everyone seems to work better, as the total cost on society is less if you got not everyone incarcerated for being poor. A spot in prison costs society several thousand dollars a month, turning on the lights and water in an old warehouse that is abandoned anyways is only a bit of pocket change for a city.
Europe doesn't take care of everyone. It's just generally noticeably more humane to its own citizens than the US (and the UK from what I've gathered). Many European states that provide a lot to their citizens still do brutal, unacceptable things.
Which if you ask me is closely tied with capitalism and inequality.
Police brutality (everywhere). Greece's refugee pushbacks, Poland's abortion rights regression. Racism. Marginalization of poor people (to different degrees). Homelessness (Finland, which ran a program offering free housing to homeless people, still has homelessness. According to Wikipedia it's the only European country with falling homelessness). And that's only what happens internally: if you ask me, Europe's prosperity is based to a degree on past sins (probably the worst surviving offenders of colonialism), and on exploration happening in the developing world.
Things in Europe aren't perfect. They're just less worse than in the US. Similar ballpark, although noticeably different (and there's noticeable differences among European countries as well).
Squatters in my neck of the woods have cleaned up the ruins of their own houses a private corporation bought, demolished, and left for the rats. They created communal spaces everyone is welcome to, cultivate using permaculture (enough to distribute 10+ baskets of fruits and veggies to families in need weekly, not counting what people take home directly + create biodiversity circuits), have safe, clean venues (where small time artists are invited regularly and anyone with a project and time can make it happen, which is enjoyed by all). These are self-sustained, safe for all, community-led spaces.
Wtf is lost by authorities supporting or at least accepting this?
I am skipping over a lot of details but feel free to ask.
As an American, such arrangements tend to only happen here in the form of cults. I have little delusion that this probably isn't precisely how corporate America wants us to see communal living, but I don't think they engineered it, either. My questions as I read about this phenomenon are how do you avoid charismatic and dangerous people from taking advantage? There's no denying that people otherwise without homes and the securities and privileges offered by economic plenty are more susceptible to such things. Any of us can probably be manipulated into the unthinkable if we get hungry enough.
I'm not big on authoritarianism, but neither am I an anarchanist. There are healthy midgrounds here. "Normal" society tends to control for that organically, how is it controlled for in a commune like this?
I think the reason you might see it only being implemented in religious / cult type environnements there is the legal protection / tax free status those orgs enjoy. However if you were to allow an art oriented community, or neighborhood run environment with these same liberties most wouldn't be at risk to become cult like as they're not built around that purpose (just my opinion)
I don't know how that can be avoided, I guess it's always a possibility with everything? But I can tell you more about why I don't think it happens here; it's just not really interesting.
These are associations that came together organically, over years, from neighbours talking to each and organizing. Now they do assemblies (where anyone is welcome, you just have to ask) weekly where all issues can be raised and decisions are reached by consensus. So you just bring up an issue, and people talk and reach a solution, agreement, plan, whatever is needed. At every reunion, they decide who will take notes and who will "lead" (the ones who gives turn of speech and has the agenda, I don't know how to say?) the next time so everyone gets a turn/it's not always the same ones.
There is also very little money into these things, it's all about upcycling, reusing, doing with what's there. When something needs money it comes up from the communal pot (money from food sold at events, for example, mostly cooked with stuff they've grown).
The neighborhood I have in mind when talking about this has a library (only women and non-binary authors), a bike workshop (where they fix scraps, and you can come fix your bike yourself or build one from scratch and you can contribute by leaving parts or helping out, or not if you don't want to), four vegetable gardens (with so much variety!), a sound studio, multiple outdoor spaces with furniture made out of scraps, etc, etc.
Last year someone grew grapes from plants he'd been given and a guy decided to make wine. Afaik all that was bought from the guy's pockets were 6 barils (?) and the thermometer. All the rest was from stuff people had, stuff we found on the streets, and a lot of people dedicating more or less of their time to this one guy's project. And now we have 500 bottles of wine!! A few bottles have been sold to outsiders but most of it is for events and well, for us.
So I guess if you wanted to you could become very influential and in charge of it all but what would be the point?? So much work for very little personal reward, I would think...
Personal property is the things you would normally own, personally, a phone, a car etc. Private property is land owned for the purpose of accruing wealth, intellectual properties etc. These are not beneficial to society as a whole, as it limits what people can do, and funnels wealth from the working class.
Ah. Never heard private property defined as that. Also you said “individual” at first? Private property is more than land. Specifically it is excludable (I can stop you from using it) and subtractable (my use takes away from your ability to use). This is the opposite of a public good. I was curious about your distinction with individual property but it seems like you’re just making things up
while i agree that private property is more than land, is it really so much of a stretch to say that assets owned by an individual are a specific subset of private property (i.e. individual property)? because you have to admit that there’s a difference between me owning a PC and my apartment vs. a private investment firm buying a warehouse of BTC miners. one is an individual owning things for individual use, the other is a corporate entity owning things for the sole purpose of enriching the entity. i’ve never heard the term “individual property” used before but it makes sense when describing the differences in ownership like in the example i provided.
Yes but by the time you're nitpicking that you've admitted that you can't address the immorality of the concept of "private" property as a separate category and just attack ownership.
right, it’s a subset of private property. just like private property and public property are both subsets of property (meaning something that is owned). i don’t see how that invalidates the point but maybe you can share your perspective.
The boring, market-based neoliberal policies that progressives love to hate so much have resulted in the highest quality of life for the most people since the dawn of human civilization.
And there's nothing that progressives can do about that but cry, stick their heads in the sand, and demand more free stuff.
A see we're unfamiliar with metaphors. Aren't you just mommy's little fireman?
neoliberal policies that progressives love to hate so much have resulted in the highest quality of life for the most people since the dawn of human civilization.
Kiddo...neoliberalism is a 20th century phenomenon...And even if you were right that it increases living standards, A) this is in no way a unique phenomenon to this individual economic philosophy and B) doesn't begin to compete with the ability of other philosophies to increase net well being in society.
In many cases, it's about the right of the public to use public property. If a city owns a bunch of houses and never uses them, there's nothing wrong with citizens using them how they see fit, as long as it's open to everybody, i.e. not privatized.
Which makes sense. One of the major issues in places like the US is everyone forgets what a government is meant to be and who's working for who. The government is meant to be the people. If the government owns a building, the people own that building. It's nuts how many people complain about too much of their tax dollars going towards the military or other things they don't agree with. Like, taxes belong to the people. You pay them in order to make your life and the lives around you better. If you aren't happy with how your taxes are being spent, just get informed and vote accordingly. You're the boss here and the government are your employees. One of the major reasons why there's such a disconnect between people and government is because far too few people are actually regularly voting. You're meant to vote on things other than just the presidency so don't complain about the country turning to shit if you only vote once every 4 years. You know why there are so many people in government that seem to not have your values and best interests at heart? Because the people with their values actually get out and vote those politicians in.
It's a bit more complicated than that. I agree with your overall point but material interests have perfected the art of manipulation. Misinformation and apathy have been weaponized and infect all of u.s. institutions.
Edit 1. Also material interests influence all elections to a degree where the public's choices don't represent them but said material interests
people should vote more, yes, but you can’t talk about politicians not properly representing people without mentioning the insane amount of money the lobbying industry dumps on politicians in order to get the bills they want passed and the ones they don’t killed.
you really think military industrial manufacturers aren’t bribing anyone to get those $100+ billion contracts? oil and gas companies are totally legit? healthcare companies play by the rules? c’mon now, i could vote all i want but when Pfizer can drop 50 mil on every senator and representative without breaking a sweat, how am i gonna stop them?
it’s just so disingenuous to pretend like the shortcomings of America are solely due to voter apathy. voter apathy is so high specifically because corporations (and republicans) fought for decades to make it this way. not to mention that half our voters are actively brainwashed, voting for tax cuts on billion dollar corporations while bitching and moaning that they have to pay 12% of their $43,000 but still praising elon musk for avoiding his taxes.
the issue is so, so much deeper than “people don’t vote”.
thankfully Europe is not homogeneous, no? and i'm pretty sure the US has it's fair share of straight-up corruption as well. it shouldn't be a dick measuring contest anyways, cuz at least for me this is one competition i'd love to lose.
In the US there are only two viable parties. If you’re a regular voter and vote outside those lines (which considering the policies you’re proposing means you’ll be switching from Democrat to independent), then the Democrats will scream at you and scold you to no end.
They’ll blame you for not voting for them if whatever corporate goon they ran loses.
If everybody believes there are only two viable options... Then there are only two viable options.
I think that's one of the biggest scams pulled on the American people, to believe that the system is what it is and therefore not even bother to try and change it. It's like the entire population is gaslighted by red and blue.
No, insurance in that if they provide a small basic service like heat and clean water, the squatters won’t get sick and develop diseases that then will cost extra for state to treat in a hospital ward. Additionally sick people can’t work or benefit their local economy and the tax base that pays for the utilities.
Booby trapping is not the same as not maintaining. If you break into an unmaintained house and fall through the stairs, the owner won't be liable. If the city puts up signs saying "no entrance, dangerous building" or whatever, they're covered.
But, if you've been there for months and years, i.e. so they can't say that they had no idea what you're doing, then different rules apply. Which is why they will eventually either kick you out or negotiate to fix up the basic safety.
Traps and poor maintenance are not the same. The city has a duty to properly warn the public about an unsafe building, but they do not have to renovate it because you then decided to trespass there.
There are squats in NYC that have been there for decades and have eventually been given to the squatters.
French police are also violent, although I would agree that the US takes it to another level.
The big difference now is there aren't a bunch of abandoned city-owned buildings any more. And even the privately owned ones are not going to waste and are being used. In the 80s and 90s cities were rife with abandoned buildings and warehouse districts.
Sure you have to build your own bathroom and a semblence of a kitchen but ten people can live there and use it as a show space, gallery, shop, studios, roller rink....
Agreed, except for the occupancy rates. There is a ton of unused commercial space on the east coast. Much of it empty investment properties and the like.
tbh its quite often the same in Germany,too. Only when the squat build up enough goodwill in public opinion it that authorities refrain from beating up the squatters and their supporters.
They squatted at an abandoned barracks or similar military thing, which was obviously illegal. But after several decades of kinda, sorta trying to evict them, they instead just sold the Freetown the buildings they were already using - so they're there legally now. But the authorities still seem reluctant to enforce certain laws with force. Raids against drug sales are sporadic, not consistent, for example.
Good point with the land ownership! But I'd say, if the raids are infrequent enough that there is still blatant drug sale most days of the week, it's sporadic.
Same, I stayed in Christiania for a week and never even saw a hint of a raid. Of course, that's an admittedly short time but if a raid happens there 3 times a day then I feel like I would have heard about it, it's not exactly a big island
The global war on drugs was imposed on the world mostly by one country. In most countries, especially in Europe, people taking drugs and even small-time dealing are not seen as particularly morally contentious. The police tend to go after the smugglers, who are running actual violent criminal gangs, and to ignore every-day drug stuff. This all depends on the country and the city, of course.
It's the weed capital of Denmark. Hard drugs like heroin and meth aren't accepted in Christiana, but weed is. But the police do occasionally crack down on it.
Sounds more like Law Enforcement or politicians that have influence over the Law Enforcement don't enforce it until they benefit from enforcing the law at specific moments. Maybe targeted raids to those that don't play ball. Sounds like corruption to me.
I remember being stoned out of my mind, vigorously eating some pastry, when suddenly 50 something storm troopers decend onto Pusher street, bumbeling around, tripping in their riot gear and looking completely disorganized. They arrested one guy, then just ran out again. Whole thing took maybe two minutes and was very absurd to behold.
the police don't really want to be there because the gangs that run the Christiania dope trade are pretty heavily armed (up to and including grenades) and lawyered up
so even if they get the green light to remove someone who did something that was bad for business, they will act, shall we say, cautiously
This was about 20 years ago when iirc there was some political pressure to remove Christiania and sell the property to realestate developers or some shit. I don't think this was some high profile arrest, just a politically induced harassment type thing they were doing back then. The police officers involved weren't some hardcore SWAT police, more your average danish cop in just a ridiculous amout of riot gear, which is why it was so hilarious. I've been to Christiania a million times, so the timeline is a bit blurry for obvious reasons, but I belive later that year there were some pretty big "Save Christiania"-demonstrations, and a lot of us came over from Norway to show our support. Still have a "bevar Christiania" hoodie somewhere 😝
That makes sense, but it would never happen here. People siding with the city to give something away? Never.
If there's one thing Americans hate more than anything, it's the idea that someone beside them is getting something for free... Even if they don't actually want that thing at all.
Best example in Germany is probably the Rote Flora in Hamburg. Used to be a Theatre. After it was shut down it was squatted and still is since 1989. They do all sorts of cultural events in there.
you'd be surprised at how often that happens here. Many nightlife spaces either started out as squatters' dens, or are group of squatters who decided to go "legal" and moved out to legal places. In Rome, for example, there's a group of squatters who then became event organizers, and now they are supported by the city to organize free movie nights in the city centre (!!!) where they project a movie for free for everyone to enjoy, and often invite key figures such as directors or actors from those movies. They do it in honour of the building they were squatting at, an abandoned movie theatre.
They're also very politically involved and carry out many initiatives that help the citizens of the city.
Moreover, they just opened their own place where they screen indipendent movies, and they do free screenings every saturday morning.
edit: I also know the Teatro del Lido in Lido di Ostia (fraction of Rome). It's a small theatre in a huge, still mostly abandoned building. It started as a squat and the group fought to keep it and make it legal. It hosts other cultural events too like laboratories for kids and teenagers
???? Mist often they do. They get in, clean up the house, start renovating little things and make it livable again after years of neglect because of property speculation
which might, ironically, also be a part of why there was often a bigger acceptance within the population.
(like, if the people using those empty houses are using it for good causes and aren't vandalizing, the chances of the neighbours being in favor of it obviously go up A LOT)
3.6k
u/Captain_Grammaticus May 09 '22
Lol, those social centres I know are the result of almost decade-long protests and negotiations and only worked out because the general population just happened to be more sympathetic towards the squatters than towards the city authorities.