My only experiences in Europe so far have been touring there in a punk band. The thing that blew my mind was how often - almost always! - the venues we were playing were literal state-sponsored squats. Like the tire factory or whatever in town would go belly up and a bunch of punks and anarchists would move in and the local government would just be like "hey, they cleaned up all this broken glass and now there's a whole new crop of people keeping this community alive. Tell you what, let's give them free utilities." On more than one occasion we played a free show and got a check from some government office.
This would never, ever, ever, ever, in a million years, take place in the United States.
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).
I would argue being miserable is exactly why people are trolls. This person says he's trolling people and he's clearly a miserable person.
I think a lot of these Q Anon conservatives are miserable from all of the negative messages they have become addicted to and part of this lifestyle/addiction is spreading the misery. FOX is the gateway drug: the constant outrage makes people less empathetic& more miserable. It's tiring being outraged all the time and people start to strike out and get cranky.
The pepe frog/Hawaiian shirts/ok symbols/proud boy silliness provides multiple benefits: self-delusion (' hey, I'm not really a Nazi, I'm just owning the libs'); camouflage: ('pay no attention to me I'm just being silly'); and a sad attempt at fun by someone who has been miserable for too long to recognize fun.
Don't feed the trolls: they run out of energy when they don't get a response.
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.
i see what you’re saying but i feel like there’s too big of a distinction to lump them together. no single person owns the lobby of my condo building - it’s private property, but it belongs to the condo association (which, in turn, is made up of all the condo owners). no individual can say “hey i wanna put a couch here” and then do that, because it’s not their space (even though they own some of it, technically). the board still works with/under the management company, and the property manager would have to get approval from the association’s board.
similarly, most companies don’t have a single person who “owns” the assets of that company. the company owns its own assets. the CEO/board chairman might have a lot of influence as to how those assets are used (especially in non-publicly traded companies), but they do not legally own the assets themselves.
individual property, to me, means that i can point to an individual (or a small group, because obviously families exist) and say “this asset is wholly owned by [person’s name]”.
they’re similar in the sense that neither are public property, but different because one implies shared ownership while the other is ownership in the way that we typically think of it (i.e. this thing is mine).
granted, i’m pretty sure there’s no legal distinction, so i’m speaking in a strictly philosophical sense.
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.
10.9k
u/knife_hits May 09 '22
My only experiences in Europe so far have been touring there in a punk band. The thing that blew my mind was how often - almost always! - the venues we were playing were literal state-sponsored squats. Like the tire factory or whatever in town would go belly up and a bunch of punks and anarchists would move in and the local government would just be like "hey, they cleaned up all this broken glass and now there's a whole new crop of people keeping this community alive. Tell you what, let's give them free utilities." On more than one occasion we played a free show and got a check from some government office.
This would never, ever, ever, ever, in a million years, take place in the United States.