by Ian Alan Paul and David Zlutnick, of The Friendly Fire Collective
Why is an analysis of property largely absent in current radical critiques of society? Why should space be incorporated into anti-authoritarian organizing, and how do we do it? How does the idea of the control of space work its way into anti-authoritarian strategy? This series of letters between Ian and David explore these ideas in an attempt to reinsert a critique of property into radical organizing and exploring ways in which the control of space can be shifted from the few to the many.
I
Good day-
I’m happy to be writing to you, Ian, in an effort to further this discussion around a theme that has been recurring in our conversations for some time. Issues of space—control, ownership, and use—have always provoked thoughts in my mind, and especially as of late. I find many dimensions to this topic that are worth noting and exploring. I’m not sure of the best way to introduce them or flow from one to another, but I suppose I can try my best.
To begin rather broadly, as a fellow anarchist don’t you find it interesting that the critique of property within anarchist thought has largely disappeared at worst, and has become watered down at best? It seems the focus today is placed largely on the state and its corporate backers, however well-deserved, but seems to generally ignore the very essence of the idea of private property and its consequences. When anarchism first developed as an idea and then as a movement, the notion of property was attacked as much as any other. But I believe that now there is a significant lack of discussion around this topic that is not only impairing our analysis of economic/political systems and social control, but also hindering the capacity of radical movements.
This is true at least in the United States, but as you know maybe not as much so in other parts of the world. In Europe, for example, we can point to the rich history of squatting and the defense of space as proof that property plays at least some role in their analysis. And outside of Europe fights for the use and control of land and space have also proven to play a large role in social struggles as with the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) in Brazil or the trend of worker-occupied and collectivized factories in Argentina, just to state a couple examples. I still think that this is a point that could be made stronger in radical movements internationally, but what is it about the US in particular that allows for a substantial void in the dialogue around the concept of the control of space?
Within anarchist circles today—especially in the US—it seems that confronting and challenging oppressive ideas is second to the struggle against more tangible and visible manifestations of oppression—the government, police, military, business, etc. I’d suggest that the idea of property is not defied in the same way as militarism, for instance, because it is not just about attacking and destroying, but about reconfiguring relationships and a system based on the individual accumulation of wealth. I think you’d agree that the idea of private property in the US is so much more ingrained and portrayed as a fundamental “right” than in other parts of the world, so much so that the right to property supersedes the right to shelter. The right to property is in many ways the very basis of our political and economic system. To challenge the idea of property, radicals need to fundamentally change people’s minds.
But I’ve slightly digressed. I began to jump ahead, but the real question I mean to ask is why the issue of controlling space is missing on the left. To me this seems a critical issue affecting everyone’s life in their day to day relations, creating and fostering inequality and social division. Landlords and tenants, bosses and workers—this really comes down to control over property. Who has it and who doesn’t? I also see it as a point at which is ripe for radicals to address, both as an organizing theme and an organizing tactic. Controlling space is not only important for those with political and economic power, but also for those who wish to challenge them.
I will leave it here for now, as I know you have a lot to say on this latter topic of activist space and resources. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and your response to mine.
In struggle,
David
II
David,
As you know, this topic of private property and social space is something that has occupied my mind for a while now. I share your curiosity as to why this analysis of property is largely missing from the radical left in the contemporary United States. Is it the stricter laws concerning the use of land that cause us to pause on this issue? Or, as you mentioned, is it hegemonic in that our assumptions concerning space limit the potentialities for collective action?
I think an analysis of precarity can shine light onto why we fail to see manifestations of resistance concerning space. Firstly, while anarchists are known to critique the systems of wage-slavery and notions of private wealth, few would choose to collectivize their own resources with others around them in resistance to these systems. I think that this is largely a symptom of economic and personal insecurity manufactured by American society. Any system (in this case, neoliberal capitalism) must reproduce the conditions which allow for the functioning of the system in the first place. By keeping workers as wage-slaves and renters, the system itself produces few opportunities for alternatives.
I think it’s also important to acknowledge that when we look to successful movements for autonomy and horizontalism, we see space as both a major theoretical concern and central movement strategy. From the European squats which supported the autonomist movement, to the collectives in Chiapas which host the Zapatista’s struggle, we see the control of space as being foundational to their struggles.
In a very practical and utilitarian framework, there are reasons that including space in strategy changes the nature of social movements a great deal. Firstly, the stakes at play become much higher when tying space to movements – particularly if people’s housing and well being becomes dependent on the movement’s success. Secondly, the infrastructural benefits for the movement dramatically increase, as the capacity for action and projects grows once a movement controls space. Thirdly, as you mentioned before, the movement takes on a personal dimension which forces the participants to reconsider their relationships to one another and to the material around them. This last point is perhaps the most critical, as when we think about social change we must have the capacity to imagine the change in ourselves before we consider the transformation of an entire society.
As you know better than I, it’s of significance that the anarchists of Spain used the slogan ‘Land and Freedom (tierra y libertad)’ to describe their struggle. And we still see this concern for land and freedom in contemporary movements, even if they only offer brief glimpses of possibilities. The Europeans have used a ‘camp’ strategy to create temporary autonomous zones (TAZ) where movements can manifest briefly, but they cannot hold onto the space for much longer than the particular action lasts. In Oaxaca, Mexico we saw the occupation of an entire city until the military violently attacked the movement. Squats offer space for the movement to exist, but over the past couple of decades they’ve slowly been disappearing. The question I pose to you, and perhaps this is unfair as it’s a profoundly difficult question, is that if we consider the seizure and collectivization of space an important feature of successful movements, what are strategies we can deploy to move in this new direction? Has the time for a movement for space passed us and must we place our hope in networked resistance? Or is there hope in seizing space(s) for autonomy and liberty? As always, I look forward to your thoughts.
With dreams of a new land with new freedoms,
-i
III
Hey Ian-
Thanks for your response. Good to hear you’ve been thinking about this as much as I have.
I guess to begin; I’d have to agree that an analysis of precarity is extremely key to understanding the control of space as well as ways in which the radical left can create strategies for addressing this issue. I think you’re on the right track when you identify personal economic insecurity as a major factor not only in the greater American population but within its radical spheres and “autonomous” communities as well. Economic hardship is a real cause of individualist behavior, especially when the economic system is the extreme fend-for-yourself-capitalism of the US. We’re taught to believe there are only so many jobs, only so much healthcare, and only so much space, so when hard economic times hit—which is always for most of the population, but amplified and expanded to new segments of it during such a period such as this—instead of pooling resources to ensure everyone’s needs are met, socially constructed survival instincts kick in and we fight amongst ourselves for what little the bosses and property owners will give us. And so I agree one hundred percent, economic insecurity creates conditions where collectivization of resources—in particular property—is at the back of people’s minds.
What I find most interesting about your comments is you extend them to the radical segments of the population. We often look at the general populace as being unwilling to collectively work together but we often ignore that our own communities are living rather individualistically as well, either by choice or (perceived) necessity. As I alluded to before, I think that looking at control of space as an answer to precarity is the right direction to move. That is to say, I think a lack of control over property is a symptom of a precarious system, and a fundamental way to challenge this system is to control property. When I say that controlling property is a worthwhile strategy I do not mean solely acquiring large amounts of space, but transforming the way in which we use that space, who is able to use that space, and how we relate to that space.
I see taking control of space as retaking control over our lives. The precarious nature of daily life is exemplified most by housing, and renting in particular. Maybe I’m partial because I see the worst aspects of the current system of housing every day in my work, but not having security or decision-making power over your means of shelter is perhaps one of the worst manifestations of precarity. If radicals (re)identified this as a core of their analysis and organizing then I believe significant strides could be made in the development of a broad and sustained movement.
Let’s look at how this could take shape for a moment. Among us anarchists, we often point to squats and the successes of the autonomist movements in Europe as examples of controlling space. This of course is a good example that we can learn from. But I think in the US there are other ways we can organize that don’t give up on the brilliant idea of seizing and defending property, but recognize the state of mind of most people—even leftists—when it comes to property in this country. I think we can both agree to the old saying, “rent is theft.” But considering we’re not at the organizational stage to declare a rent strike, seize property, and collectivize housing and social space, a great way to start would be to organize ourselves and other tenants. Yes, maybe we have to pay rent (at least in the short-term), but if we do why give the landlord control over how we use our space?
The question you posed to me, Ian, was asking how we can move in the direction of seizing and collectivizing space. Again I think the fundamental issue is control. Who controls and has access to the space? Yes we can (and should) seize space. But how do we start, and how do we first begin to get these ideas into the minds of a broader audience?
My opinion is we start small—begin to work cooperatively and establish examples of control. Since at the moment we are paying rent (at least you and I are, I know for a fact), what can we do to start this process? Hold building meetings, work on altering the property or terms of use to reflect our wants and needs (with or without landlord permission), meet with neighboring buildings, etc. All of this begins a cooperative relationship and starts to return control to the hands of tenants. The more a building works together to establish collective demands, the less power the “legal” owner has. These simple practices can begin to change landlord-tenant dynamics and thereby shift people’s perception of property. From this you can gradually develop movements to control space—by collectively demanding a neighbor not be evicted, or further down the line that a vacant building be used for a social center and not a new boutique. And once this process begins to happen, perhaps you can foster an atmosphere that would tolerate and even support campaigns of property expropriation and collectivization.
I don’t know… you did pose an awfully big question. But I do think there are answers. And I think that anti-authoritarian organizers need to begin developing them and themselves working together to show that these sorts of models of collective ownership can and do work. Additionally, we should present multiple models. We should recognize that we’re not all squatters, and speaking for myself I’m not currently in a position to attempt to seize, hold, and defend property. We as renters—and yes, I do mean you and me, Ian—need to continue to develop and reinforce bonds with our neighbors in order to further our control over our living environment. We work where we are and we should meet others where they are. And in turn, others who are willing by all means should squat and turn the excess of capitalism into the dreams of our future.
So what do you think? I’ve presented some ideas that have long been buzzing around my head, as you know through our past conversations. Do you think this is the sort of strategy development you were thinking of?
I also know you’re interested in the idea of controlling space for other means besides housing, namely social space and to increase the capacity of radical movements. Can you share your latest thoughts on that subject?
As always I look forward to your theories on a challenging subject.
Until soon,
David
IV
David,
It’s taken me a while to fully develop thoughts in response to your most recent letter as I think we are both gradually realizing how complex the issue is, which makes developing strategy even more daunting. I think that your thoughts on (re)centering the local geography as the site of resistance are dead on. For too long, anarchists have secluded themselves from ‘politics in general’ to cultivate their own specific politics at the expense of a great deal. By focusing on the local geography (the building, the block, the neighborhood), I feel that anti-authoritarians can begin to form new types of relationships which would serve to create the change we want to see in our everyday lives.
When we talk about collectivization of property and space, we immediately see the boundaries which confine us. Like you mentioned, things like rent, building codes and ultimately the police whom enforce these institutions, all serve to perpetuate an oppressive relationship, in this case between the tenant and the landlord. Through the organization of tenants, new possibilities would emerge for subverting this relationship. I agree that it is all too easy to fetishize the anarchist neighborhoods of Europe, and I do not think it’s productive to simply try to reproduce them. I believe you’ve already said enough about this specific type of space, so I’ll move onto my thoughts about social space.
While I believe it is essential that we move to transform traditional living arrangements into more radical ones, we still must broaden our scope to other types of spaces. While anarchists and other radicals have most often focused on two primary spaces, the space of work (the syndicalists, etc), and the space of the home, we too often overlook the third space – that of the social. I think this is largely the result of the historical obliteration of social space in the United States through the proliferation of the culture of private property. As a result, we are accustomed to this third space being displaced into either the space of the home or the space of work. The reason I believe it is so important for radicals to reimagine and struggle for a third space is because there exists an array of dormant possibilities in such spaces.
These spaces could be used for political organizing and could provide space for (previously) unconnected individuals to form new contacts and relationships. We can think of spaces which already serve this function in our communities, but unfortunately they almost all fall under the rubric of a business model such as a bar, cafe or music venue. If we are to move towards the formulation of a new society we must seize the space(s) in which it will live. Although I’m tempted to begin laying out the features of what such a space could be and how it could function, I think doing so would only serve to create another isolated set of politics. If such spaces were to emerge within communities, they would have to be the product of those community’s cooperation and struggle.
Thinking about these issues raises larger questions about movement building and social struggle which cannot be separated from issues of space. For example, how insulated or how broad should socials movements attempt to be? Do we see ourselves as autonomists trying to create a schism just large enough for our own radical communities to exist in or are we trying to transform entire cities and regions? Many radicals in our community have been frustrated after attacking national structures and have instead chosen to focus on local struggle. The question that remains however, is would we be content in just creating autonomy for ourselves? I think seeing ourselves as interconnected to our neighbors in liberation and autonomy is essential, and any seizure of space would have to keep this in its framework to truly be radical. The danger, as always, lies in remaining ineffective by just concentrating in our own needs. Do you feel there can be a genuine synergy between a social space and a social struggle? Or is the desire to seize space for radical communities just something which will make the difficulties of precarity slightly less sharp?
With fewer answers than questions,
-i
V
Hello again-
Well first of all, let me say you have a wonderful way of signing off. Your valedictions put mine to shame. But besides that, I suppose we can delve back into the subject at hand. I apologize for my tardy response. I’ve been thinking a lot about what to write next and have been having trouble. Yes, I agree, this is a complex matter that probably will result in more questions than answers. But I like what you’re thinking as far as the re-concentration of struggle on geographic terms.
The idea of securing social space is an interesting one. I think the historical privatization of the commons, as you mentioned, is definitely a factor in our overlooking this third type of space that you refer to, especially in the US. We have little to no readily available, accessible, and non-restricted public space, and it is something that is often forgotten. While I agree with you that this is absolutely essential in terms of basic interaction with each other—in creating relationships to build trust and solidarity, in becoming comfortable and familiar with our neighbors—I think that recognizing how access to space, or a lack thereof, affects the organizing capacity of social movements is also key.
Radicals’ lack of control over space not only plays out in terms of our personal lives—how precarious our lives feel day to day—but also in our effect in the political sphere. If organizers do not have a place to meet, hold events, build infrastructure, their ability to develop is significantly impaired. Generally, only well-funded non-profits and NGOs are in control of any space (and “control” is loosely used, as most space is rented). It is important to point out that most of these groups are in the moderate spectrum of leftist politics, largely because they need to be able to secure funding. This is not to diminish the on-the-ground work these organizations may do as much of it is very necessary, but the fact is many are missing a radical analysis, or if they do have one are constrained by the risk of losing funding to act on that analysis outside of more moderate means. The other groups we often see with space are authoritarian political organizations—socialist or communist groups for example—who take in money through dues. So what we see is that the greatest amount of space controlled by the left is held by moderate or authoritarian groupings, not uncoincidentally those which currently hold greater power in politics than anti-authoritarians.
For us anarchists, autonomists, or anti-authoritarians who look toward a different path of organizing, maybe not isolated from but outside of the models described above, we are left to find a spot for our next meeting. Without foundational grants or authoritarian structures resources can be slim. That’s put rather simply to be sure, but you catch my drift. I know coming up with answers to these questions isn’t easy, but let’s discuss ways in which anti-authoritarians can control space of our own to be used to further develop movements of resistance. Ian, I hate to put this back on you, but what are your thoughts about the best ways to do this? Do you think a movement of occupation is the way to go for acquiring social space? Or would you advocate collective renting or ownership? For political reasons I’d advocate occupation, but for reasons of practicality I sometimes lean towards the great soul-destroying deed of collectively paying rent to a landlord, at least in the short-term. I suppose the type of social center you would ultimately like to create might influence this decision. Either way, I guess I don’t really have a concrete answer.
This sort of moves me back into a response to your thoughts on how broad or isolated our organizing should be, and how this affects our use of space. Well, my opinion, as you probably know too well by now, is if anarchists don’t organize broadly we are doomed. Our space must reflect that. The idea of “autonomy” is strategically important, but there is no true autonomy under capitalism. While the purpose for any initial control of space should be for our benefit—a space for OUR events, OUR meetings, to increase OUR capacity—if we keep it only for ourselves or don’t fight for additional space to be used beyond small groups of individuals with similar politics then our organizing strategy, including one addressing the control of space, will fail. Radical organizing must appeal to non-radicals or it will never develop to be an influential movement. This does not mean, as many would probably argue, watering down analysis, demands, or means. Not at all. But it has to give people a reason to participate. It has to be relevant to people’s needs and wants. And as such, the space which we control must be relevant as well.
What do you think, Ian? Am I on the right track here? The long delay in my response and my lack of clear thought signify, to me at least, that these discussions need to continue, and collective initiatives need to be developed sooner than later.
Posing ill-thought answers to well-thought questions,
David
VI
David,
Firstly I would like to affirm your hypothesis that authoritarian structures seem to thrive well in authoritarian environments. It’s of no surprise that the forces of recuperation (NGO’s, the Democrats) do well in a capitalist system as both of their structures are similar to the larger economic structure. Secondly, it seems natural that groups which are hierarchical in their structure would be compatible with other vertical structures, such as the landlord-tenant relationship. This is perhaps the root of our problem when we encounter difficulties trying to imagine anti-authoritarian spaces – the notion is in itself in conflict with the current authoritarian/capitalist structure.
I think we both encounter the same resistance when thinking about strategies, tactics and formations which could potentially open up enough of a rupture in the current structures to allow for an anti-authoritarian space. On the one hand, occupations as a strategy seem to most closely align with our set of politics, but tactically are unsound in an environment defined by a militant police state. On the other hand, the notion of renting a space seems to somehow compromise our own politics, not to mention that financially it would be difficult to sustain. This question of space continues to draw us back into broader questions concerning overarching strategies. Are we trying to build anarchist organizations capable of growing and pushing forward as the syndicalists and autonomists had done in the past? Or do we envision ourselves as agitators, trying to spread the germ of resistance in the imaginations of the Left? Perhaps these strategies aren’t as divergent as I am making them seem, but when thinking about space they seem to cause schisms to emerge.
Perhaps we could imagine a space supported through formal organization, which would be funded through a dues structure or a business run out of the space, which could serve as an infrastructural asset for more radical action outside of the space. I agree with you that satisfying ‘our’ needs must be a primary concern, but if we approached the creation of a radicalized third space with a broader concept of strategy, I think we would realize that ‘our’ needs and the needs of our communities are closely aligned and the struggle(s) to satisfy those needs should be integrated as often as possible. We can hope for a future where our capacity to seize space(s) will have grown and a strategy of occupation would be more viable, but as you’ve said, it is in our interest to seize space sooner rather than later. It is with this in mind that I would advocate for the opening up of space using whatever means groups have to do so. If this means collecting dues, then this is what we must do. If it means running a business to support the space, then let’s open one.
The radical left in the United States has remained on the fringe of discourse over the last decade largely because we rely too much on the demonstration as the space of action and movement. We’ve been surprisingly good at manifesting large numbers of antiauthoritarians at summits and overcoming police in the streets. However, despite these successes, we must ask ourselves why we are still stuck working in precarious jobs and living in places we have little agency in. I believe that this move towards space as a strategy for change will not only make our struggle more material and substantial, but will reveal a new geography of unimagined action(s) and social formation(s) as we move forward.
For laying bricks now so we can throw them later,
-i
