Respect to the anarchists doing this. We need more of this

How hard is it to get into one of these buildings without breaking the law? I imagine the owners take precautions.

That ass is revolutionary. No ass is counter-revolutionary. Pic related

...

Fam when we have luxury gay space communism, easy access to both tits and ass will be given to everyone

to take part in bourgeoise elections or what?

Read Pannekoek

It's "private" property, you are breaking the law.
Locks on the doors, everything shutdown tight and cops on lookout to make sure squatters don't get in.

Ain't no party like a squatter party.

Telling you right now, that's an natural ass.

did you forget the part where they're providing homeless people with shelter? That alone is enough

hey there porky

I didn't know that. It used to be legal as long as you didn't break in by force, but apparently it was criminalised in 2012.

why are black flags recently the biggest shitposters on this board? Or is it just this one guy

Yeah, they didn't like people with no place to go having to take up residence in buildings that are serving no purpose.

And this is one of the reasons why this model is self-defeating: you provide shelter for the homeless for a few months, then run when the popo comes, repeat a few times, until you are caught and jailed for a few years.

It's also obvious you can't grow in this model, meaning getting exponentially more and more people doing this. If this could become a mass phenomenon the popo would start to send more units on guard in the rich areas.

It's a fringe idea that serves one purpose well: showing people the immorality of private property. (Not even that, just some moral lack in the housing market, but I'm being generous.)

And it's not that I'm against illegality in general (revolutions are illegal) but its a model that just can't serve a broader mass and above the lumpen-prole line.

I really fucking hate the moralism emanating from the anarchists, because usually what comes as a retort is: "well, yeah, but at least we are doing something, changing individual lives." You dickheads need to realize that A) revolutions happen due to mass eruption and not because you made a dozen hobos less hungry or temporarily sheltered; B) it's a collectivist endeavor, ergo it need formal organization for the masses, and C) nobody gives a shit about your individual moral ambitions. The people want a viable model that is radically alternative to capitalism. Showing them squatting vids at best pisses off people at the rich, but everybody knows it's not viable to let anybody live anywhere. And I'm not even going to point out how the general state of ansquats reek of drug use and piss.

If you want to seriously look at the limitations of squats, look at Christiania. It went from a libertarian drug paradise to a tourist attraction that's basically private property of the original inhabitants.

We. Need. A. Party.
We need lasting mass mobilization. We need to work with the workers again. Everything else is a joke.

...

...

...

why not both?

dialectics bb

Because they are not a revolutionary class. They are declassed. This is not to say that I don't empathize with them, or that socialism won't help them.

Also, did you just disregard my wall of text?
Don't even answer.

Lelninism was a mistake

I agree.

I agree, but it makes no sense to form a party when you have no popular representatives or elected representatives. In the US Kshama Sawant is the only marxists whose been elected for a billion years or something. Bernie Sanders is poo-poo'd by people who would rather have stronger capitalism than reform. There's no-one else, and academics calling for solidarity are literally a meme, they're the most worthless group of people. intellectuals only get to serve their role when their party needs justifying or policy-crafting.

Elected representatives don't do much for you when crisis hits and the masses start to revolt, in fact it's the exact moment when politics go on the streets and against the established institutions. Popular representation isn't exclusively a bourg. democratic form.

If they get hold of local institutions they would need to go rogue and against the federal state, eventually face the army being sent in, or go reformist… I don't see them agitating for a proper revolution, do you?

And? Working within the law only gets people so far and if you aren't getting cops after you and helping those that need it, you aren't really getting ahead with the revolution.

There is always going to be more homeless and more sympathizers as time goes on. Showing how it's done and applying the action would bring more to support it.

So anyone that gets thrown into the street is lumpen? Also, if you are going to use that word you might as well stop and say nigger and degenerates.

You're a fucking delusional little shit that thinks people will just come into little book clubs and change their minds about Capitalism. If you aren't helping people's lives, you aren't changing their minds. The hungry don't care for ideas, they want food. Those who are freezing in the cold don't want to read, they want to stay warm. Those that are barely holding on to their homes and keeping their family from sleeping on the streets don't care about academics, they care about if they can make it another day. You need to offer support before you offer the alternative to the system, only then will they become more likely to read and believe in that change.

By whose taxonomy? I see them being paid for the symbolic labor of scapegoat.

This. The Greek Golden Dawn party was as popular as it was for as long as it was precisely because they offered essential public services (soup kitchens, security against looters) in a time of official government paralysis. Istr the Nazis did much the same during the Weimar period.
It takes a very special liberal to imagine that Maslow's hierarchy will stand aside like the Red Sea just because liberalism.

literally wut

Who said anything about working within the law? You stay on the side of the law when it's practical, and you stay out of its sight when it's not. When you have a broader revolutionary base you'll be automatically considered a threat and be banned anyway. What you suggest is just petty criminalism, nothing systematically challenging.

It will bring the attention of the rich, the municipal government, and the police way before you could establish a base. You will be portrayed as vandals and vigilants and will be dealt with accordingly. Just look at Exarcheia, the largest squatting experiment in history. You are not allowed to expand, you are contained, the police sends agents, junkies, and dealers to your territory, forcing you to police the very area you wanted to be police free. It doesn't make sense.

I mean this is just communism101… If you are homeless but work, you are a proletarian. Smelling bad or being regarded shit by society doesn't make you anything as far as class is concerned – what matters is your relation to the means of production.

Jesus, would "trans-proletariat" work for you better, ya trigger'd buttercup?

Moralism, the paragraph (as predicted). The lumpen have literally no stakes in production as far as their current predicament is concerned. Workers (we are talking about London in OP's context here) already manage with the food, or partake in bread lines every week or so if they are pushed, or are precariat. What they want is stable lives, better working conditions, access to medicine, to holidays, to quality entertainment, free time, quality schools, and not your liberal and drooling pity. Are you going to provide them those too, or are you satisfied with patching up the system where it is the most severely leaking?

But all this is a joke, really. Revolutions have erupted in countries where the workers were far, far off worse than Londoner hobos.

You agitate at the soup kitchen, not run it and think that's that.

Marx's?

Yeah, no. Helping out lumpenproles is not worthy of anything other than scorn

Liberals, Christians, Jehovas, hippies, parliamentary parties. They are everywhere and they don't like radicals around, exactly because charity is amusing the poor and not helping them solve their problems. There's no major city in the West that doesn't have them.

to belive that a "party" has to be officially stablish is inane, squating can only exists as a temporal movement as a result of property rights, it is pure praxis without any ideological background other than making use of property

a party cannot be formed around such movememnt because squating is simply the result of a system, t is what you get when you have a system defending property rights

a party must be formed around a cooperating group of people around the idea that a new system must be stablished, therefore we understand that the party must encompass not only the usage of property but the creation of new property, because the party cannot depend of capitalist production of buildings, it needs to build their own

You're right but that doesn't mean that's what it has to be. Squatting and providing shelter to the homeless could be a means to educating and radicalizing them.

Ultimately the first step would be fixing their mental health issues, since that's either what forced them into homelessness or what keeps them there. If they believe the volunteers are genuinely trying to help them and capable of giving meaning and purpose to their lives, they might be willing to accept therapy and drug rehabilitation.

I mean… you want to participate in social work or revolutionary politics?

Yes, because another 100> man party is going to really work this time and not stew in irrelevance.

What you described the workers as wanting will be "accomplished" by electing socdems who promise to enact polices mandating better pay and conditions or schools or whatever. Meanwhile your party that doesn't participate in electoral politics or do any sort of projects besides "agitation" will have only convinced workers that you're lazy shits who won't actually do anything for them. Or is your party going to overthrow the bourgeois from your armchairs with the proletarian terra cotta army?

Ok then, we agitate at the soup kitchen and get called faggots who will never do anything. Meanwhile at best soup kitchens will be run by reformist socdems who leave those who got a free meal still voting for polticians and at worst Golden Dawn types who have just endeared themselves to people who have been fucked over, indirectly making those hostile to the left. And the implication that you can't both run a soup kitchen while agitating is fucking retarded.

There's no reason for them not to go together. If comrades want to help the destitute while also helping the revolution, that could be the plan to do it. I don't know if it'd be the most effective way to recruit people, but at least it'd be something permanent.

jesus, you scum

Have you ever worked with the homeless? I did. It's not pretty, and it's definitely not rewarding personally, nor a place for political potential. Just look at the homeless dude in OP's vid without your moralist glasses on and tell me that he'll make a good activist for the cause. He doesn't give a fuck. He's glad for the temporal shelter and that's it, he doesn't care for the weird salvation shit you preach to him since he has lost contact with his own fucking life long ago. He needs years of treatment and socialization, not this insecure cat & mouse game with the police these squatters can offer. It's not a surprise that social workers burn out so soon.

Yes, I agree. I'm saying this could be a tactic if these people really do want to help the homeless in a meaningful way while also helping the revolution. I have no idea if it'd work or if these anarchists actually care about doing good rather than feeling good.

Are you that ancom from the smashie threads? I could def. work with you.

Lots of ancoms here and a lot of smashie threads. I tend to criticize fellow anarchists who seem to lack any real theory or coherent ideology and do shit for the fun of it while thinking they're being revolutionary, if that's what you're referring to.

Th-thanks. Hopefully it wouldn't end like Trotsky and Makhno.

Oh yes, because pointing out that your list of what workers want is being "accomplished" by socdems and ineffectively shrieking at workers to join your irrelevant circle jerk without being able to compete with reformists or reactionaries in terms of providing short term benefits is a losing strategy clearly makes me a socdem infiltrator. The jig is up, may as well return to my Soros handlersDSA group and let them know my attempts at sabotaging the white racerevolution has failed.

Reading books and working changed my mind. Didn't need anyone to change it for me. The influence of movements in changing peoples' minds is overstated imo. Most people will change their minds once capitalism crashes hard once again. Activism won't do that anymore than book clubs. You're little more than a hyper-liberal charity cause. Dumbass.

god fucking damn

if you pay close attention it's the anhil flag, not black flag

pretty sure it's one autist

true christians

The best of both the Marxist and anarchist movements coming together? Nice.

...