London needs Social Centres
Published:
April 27, 2010 09:11
by
rampART
Neighbourhoods: east london
In a time of political crisis, we need effective bases from which to mobilise effective resistance but why is London one of the few large cities in Europe which currently doesn't have a thriving social centres movement despite the fact that squatting in England is still legal? [read more ...]
Related links: rampArt site | rampArt in Wikipedia | rampArt Group Page | past rampArt articles in IMC-London
With Mayday less than a week away, and a General Election following shortly after, the signs of any coordinated opposition to the ruling regime (in whatever colours it presents itself), in London at least, seem to be very thin on the ground. Aside from the usual high profile events in public places on Mayday itself, there is very little high visibility demonstration of resistance at a local level and, perhaps more importantly, no social centres providing a base from which to organise.
Approximately three weeks ago, a group of people connected with the rampART collective opened a space in East London with the intention of providing living space for five people and using the remainder of the building as a social centre. Last Friday, during the opening night cafe, the owner attempted an illegal eviction which was successfully resisted. So far, so business-as-usual. The events the following day, however, while being boringly familiar to some who have been involved in squatting and managing social centres for some time, raise some serious questions about the meaning of squatting as a political activity.
A call was put out for people to turn up at 2pm on the Saturday when the owner had promised/threatened to return and we were well prepared to defend the building. However, one of the residents took it upon himself to contact the owner beforehand and negotiate for the five residents to stay with the provision that he would get rid of the 'troublemakers'. Not all the other residents were complicit and, in fact, were not consulted.
This was almost a carbon copy of the events that led to the collective voluntarily leaving the Lift 'n' Hoist building in Elephant and Castle. In that case, we were invited by two of the people already occupying the building (with the agreement, we thought, of the other residents) to set up a social centre in the basement and first floor but someone who moved in a few weeks later, again, contacted the owner and negotiated terms that precluded the operation of a social centre in the space. They were evicted four weeks later.
Although we are well aware of the problems faced by people who need to secure living space in a city where alternatives to squatting are, for many, impossible, we are also becoming increasingly aware that, for others, squatting is a lifestyle choice and, it seems, a chance to exercise power in a situation where people, because they are homeless, are vulnerable to manipulation.
We have perhaps been naïve in believing that everyone who agrees (or appears to agree) to live in a social centre shares our political views. But we also necessarily have to trust that anyone who approaches us or gets involved understands what we stand for and supports our project to challenge the commodification of public space, expose the inequalities which lead to homelessness in the first place and provide accommodation, not only for living but for the free exchange of ideas and skills, as well as for political projects and fundraising. These things can't happen if we become exclusive and constantly suspicious but they can't happen either if divisive tactics are used against us.
We know that our recent experiences are not unique to us or to our particular project. They are, perhaps, symptomatic of the culture of competitive individualism which we are committed to fighting. But having to deal with people's personal agendas is tiring and depressing and deflects energy from the urgent project of establishing viable movements for change.
Many of us have been made welcome and been invited to participate in the social centres which exist in many European cities but, currently, we feel as if we cannot offer similar hospitality in London or establish effective networks outside the country. The recent 'Social Centres in a Time of Crisis' meeting in Leeds seemed to us to demonstrate a dissipation of political commitment and capitulation to dominant agendas rather than a real force of resistance. Despite, or perhaps because of this we are more committed than ever to continuing the fight. We will not be beaten. and, once we have found a new building from which to operate, we will call a public meeting to discuss what people want from social centres and how we can best serve the interests of the many active social movements who are mobilising against politics-as-usual. Meanwhile, please leave a comment or email rampartATmutualaidDOTcom.
Additions
roof over your head is a priority
Published: April 27, 2010 18:26
by
kkk
Having heard a slightly different version of events from the occupants of the building I must say that I'm taken aback by the outrage and far-fetched implications drawn in this statement.
From what I understand:
1. 3 out of 5 squatters living @ globe rd have not actually been involved with rampart before, 1 got 'involved' recently (3 colts lane period) and only the remaining one has longer term links with your project.
2. they occupied the building primarily with a view of having somewhere to live and that, for a few of them, after a long run of pretty bad squatting luck and having to move (on pretty detrimental terms) each month since at least December last year (anybody remember the community squat project @ flats in green lanes?).
3. most people involved in the rampart collective are not actually squatters and rely on outsourcing of the whole occupation part onto other people? And those who are apparently are not prepared to deal with living in a social centre and all issues that it creates.
My views on the subject:
4. To me, important part of the politics that you seem to be talking about is DIY. Want to run a social centre in an occupied space? Squat it yourself - you'll have all the say in what happens.
5. You can't expect people to give up what has a chance of being a semi-stable place to live for the sake of running events, some of which (having been to a few rampart things) have nowt to do with politics/social activism and more with entertainment.
6. Claims such as "provide accommodation, not only for living but for the free exchange of ideas and skills, as well as for political projects and fundraising" are just way out of balance: it seems you are yourself using divisive tactics, implying that the squatters won't use their HOME as space for exchange of ideas and skills etc and you have exclusive license and definite recipe for those. And how would they go about all of that if they were out in the street?
7. "We know that our recent experiences are not unique to us or to our particular project. They are, perhaps, symptomatic of the culture of competitive individualism which we are committed to fighting. But having to deal with people's personal agendas is tiring and depressing and deflects energy from the urgent project of establishing viable movements for change."
I find it plain arrogant and offensive that you can call your "project" more urgent than these people's housing.
To finish this little rant, I'd just like to say that what you're presenting here is hierarchical in the essence - 'the cause' (which *you* claim monopoly of or at least imply some very special connection to) being more important than well-being of the occupants of the building.
This is just plain bollocks and you should understand that if you want to do something it has to happen *organically*, not top-down. There are social centres like this and in my view they're much more approachable and effective (one current example being the Mare St squat).
Drop the pretense of the legendary mighty rampart and start from scratch, you'll get respect and make something real - not just provide an alienated service dependent on someone else providing you with one.
Uneven ground
Published: April 28, 2010 09:10
by
Avid reader
Don't know who this is attributable to but I just read it in Lost Dog: 'This is an inevitability which repeats the essential risk of politics: the negotiation between an idealism which is necessary to protect our desires into the world and the necessity of action which will betray any aspect of this ideal as it falls onto the rough and uneven ground of the world'. Seems to sum up the situation.
Celebrating is our Downfall
Published: May 01, 2010 20:54
by
S
It seems to me that part of the problem with current squatting projects in general is that there is more of a commitment to getting rat-arsed than anything else.
3 of the most recent squats I have attended put most of their effort into organizing huge parties, which were widely publicised and brought a lot of attention from the police. Sure enough, those buildings quickly became evicted and are now fully boarded up. The way I see it, this simply makes squatting in London harder to do.
Btw, this isn't directed at rampart in particular, just a general view.
conflicting points of view
Published: May 02, 2010 09:05
by
???
What kkk's post suggests is that unless you actually break the building and live there, you have no right and no say into what happens there. This makes sense for residential squatting, but don't know how this would actually work for social centres, which organise public events, involve lots of different people and are trying to create a broader movement(or at least that should be the point).
Some people have jobs, families, and other commitments; some people (because of past criminal records etc) might have to be careful about getting arrested. Some people may not be able to actually squat there or dedicate 100% of their time - but still want to be involved. This should be encouraged, rather than being seen as being a parasite or 'stranger in the house'. Otherwise things risk turning into a ghetto, even more than they are now.
bread AND roses / roofs AND social centres
Published: May 08, 2010 21:13
by
Julez
Ex-Rampart collective was always extremely respectful of (and grateful for) the amount of energy the residents have to put in a social centre project, but is maybe been a bit naif in assuming people really know what they're talking about when they respond enthusiastically to the idea of having one in their squat.
We have been looking for people truly willing to engage in a collectively run venue. That should mean, among other things, that every collective member, basically regardless of the number of hours she/he spends in the place, has a right to partecipate to the decision-making. And as far as I know, the final decision about not wanting a social centre in Globe Road was taken without asking anyone's opinion before getting to an agreement with a landlord who, had not been for the obnoxious collective members and Rampart supporters having a social night in the place that very night, would have found there just 5 persons, and merrily kicked their asses out of the building aided by his gorilla friend and a big iron bike lock.
As for the accusations of being hierarchical, that's something I really can't understand. If insisting on consensus decision making is hierarchical, how would you define someone who's using his right to have a roof over his head as an excuse for taking over and disrupting a newborn group? We had been invited to come and stay in each one of the places we've been around in the last months.
We are glad to be hosted at Mare street for our meetings, but the stage space will soon be demolished and London will soon need another place for bigger gatherings. What then? I'll leave for another day the things I found out while in Palermo about how the people is defending their social spaces against something more than dodgy owners and bailiffs (it's the police and the mafia - united front). Maybe the collective is going to dissolve. We do not want to live in the memory of great and glorious Rampart the rest of our days.
Maybe the next step could be formalizing some of our aims and beliefs, so people will have a clear idea before they welcome us in their 'homes'.
my personel experience of "social centres"
Published: May 11, 2010 19:48
by
Nigel McCorkell
I live in Belgrade road a few doors up from what used to be the "Belgrade Road Social Centre". My experience of this "Social Centre" was not a good one. It seemed to be filled with middle class posers who want to bang on about "building communities". All they did was hold huge parties which went on most of the night, the racket was unbelievable. This is a residential street with families, pensioners and workers. For the residents of Belgrade Rd, this is our home.. If the social centre wanted to build communities then why did they come into ours and treat it like a toilet. There would be people shouting, pissing and vomiting in my street. Arguing, talking absolute shite at the top of their voices. Squatting seems to be in danger of becoming a "phase" for arseholes to behave like spoilt children whilst at the same time bolstering their egos by pretending to be revolutionaries.
some real community building
Published: May 11, 2010 23:15
by
is going on here
http://london.indymedia.org/other_medias/4764
not a social centre exactly, but the people in the street actually are signing a petition to keep their squatters in the street
Latest articles feed
Comment on Rampart
I always felt that what happened at Rampart was socially aware, motivated and politically correct. The problem with non hierachical organisations is that there can sometimes be a lack of focus, commitment and shared ideology.
What went wrong this time? It is totally understandable that inhabitants of a squatted space would wish to keep it at all costs and placate the owner if necessary, but it is clear that there was a breakdown in communications somewhere along the line.
If people want to be part of the Rampart community and all that it entails, than they should perhaps consider this more seriously. After all, it's not difficult to find an empty building to squat if someone wants somewhere to live rent free.
Communication really matters. Aren't new members asked to give their reasons for joining Rampart at group meetings?