In Our Defense: An Owners' Perspective on the GPAC Space Issue

Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:58 PM UTC

The Greater Pittsburgh Anarchist Collective recently posted an erroneous account of our interactions with them as owners of the space their collective uses. This is a response designed to elevate the disagreement to a more reality-based level. Their original statement can be found on infoshop, and on their website, http://gpacattack.org

As anarchists, we have a philosophical critique of private property and many of its implications. However, in the world we inhabit, pretty much all of us own property to one extent or another. Say, for example, that you have the privilege of owning a nice bicycle. Yes, you may be lucky to be in this position. You may also believe that in a perfect world everyone should have a bicycle. But you have this bicycle, and if you lend it to someone in good faith, you might be annoyed if it turned out they had no intention of returning it as originally agreed.

In our case, the property we own is a building. This building is a mixed commercial and residential property with an apartment, a storefront, and two other sections in various states of (dis)repair and usability. At the time we bought it (2006), the radical community was still reeling from the loss of project 1877 three years previously. However, despite several large meetings for the purpose of forming a similar collective, everyone was too busy to commit to a project of that scale. The years went by and we did what we could to fix up the space ourselves, until in 2008 when GPAC approached us to use the space. Because of our interest in anarchist projects and our inability to fully utilize the space ourselves, we made an agreement with GPAC that they could use the storefront space for a year, beginning on November 1, 2008. Originally we hoped we could participate in the space in an equal role within the collective, but GPAC was very intent on having their collective closed. We agreed to act only as the building owners with no stake in the group we would share our living space with. The terms of the agreement were that they would fix the raw, currently unusable space up to a code-legal state before opening to the public, that they would consult with James (one of the owners, and an experienced builder) about how to do this, and that they would not do anything illegal in the space. These conditions were required by us in order to feel physically safe sharing the building and also risking our potential legal liability as owners. In addition, GPAC was to pay 1/5 of the annual property taxes on the building (based on the fact that they were using 1/5 of the total building space) and a 1/5 of the utility costs for the first floor (far less than the total amount used by their project). These payments did not constitute rent, as we did not profit from them at all, and did not intend to. Most importantly, it was repeatedly stated by us and agreed to by GPAC representatives in official meetings and in our written contract that this year was a trial period of sorts, and that while we might choose to continue the arrangement after a year, we might also choose to discontinue it FOR ANY REASON. We brought up then that our employment was very uncertain, and that the building was expensive to keep up with at all, and that we might need to move. At the time of this agreement, no objections were raised, and GPAC seemed pleased with the opportunity to take on this challenge.

Several months into the year, it seemed that work was going very slowly in the GPAC space. At this point we had another meeting and voluntarily agreed to extend GPAC's lease for two more months, until the end of 2009, because we we're worried that they would not have as much time to make full use of the space as they had originally hoped. Our only additional stipulation, which was agreed to at the time, was that they would take over full utility costs for their space during this final two month period, as we didn't feel we could afford to cover additional expenses any longer than the year, especially because the additional period would be in the winter (heating just our 19' x 32' apartment is exorbitant in the winter and the 13 foot ceilings of the first floor are out of our budget). We also raised a concern at this point that GPAC could be unsatisfied with the use they got out of the space in relation to the effort they were putting in (based on how long it was taking) and we reminded them that they could withdraw from the project at any time if they felt that their potentially limited tenure wasn't worth the effort. At that point several months in they had only managed a handful of work days. However, GPAC decided to continue with the renovations at this point and open the space. Their goal for opening kept getting pushed back, but eventually it happened.

There are various additional critiques that we've had with the actions of GPAC, and that GPAC has had of us. At the very least, communication between the two groups has not been ideal. It seems relatively meaningless to hash out these details in a public statement, as they're somewhat beside the point...the relevant points being, from our perspective, that:

1. Things aren't working out between the two groups. There is obviously not a relationship of mutual trust. We, the owners, don't feel like we have had a good working relationship with GPAC, and GPAC's recent statements on the subject of the space (in addition to their actions and comments for some time) indicate that they also aren't comfortable with us. Our perspective is that we believe in very different tactical approaches (as well as, to some extent, ideologies. We're not insurrectionists, and while we believe in a diversity of tactics, sometimes those tactics really seem to clash when combined in a small space). This is not intended as an objective judgement on GPAC and the value of its activities, but a statement about our comfort level in being involved with them. We're kind of amazed that they seem to want to continue to exist in close proximity, considering their recent claims that we're worse than normal landlords. This is hard to believe, but if true, we encourage the group to enter a standard for-profit rental agreement with another property owner in the area and hope that this arrangement is more satisfactory to them.

2. We want to sell the building so that our family can move to a small house. The thought of living in one room with two children seems unsustainable, and the financial burden of continuing to exist in 5001 is too much to shoulder. Even though we own the building, we have to pay ~$700/month in taxes and utilities. That's before any maintenance or repairs on this old, big-ass building. We considered trying to rent some of the spaces so that we could afford to move without selling the building and allow certain projects to continue taking place there, but the philosophical and practical issues of becoming ACTUAL landlords are completely unappealing. This strikes us as somewhat ironic because GPAC seemed to object to our privileged status as owners of the building they have been inhabiting, but now they object to us wanting them out so we can get out of that position of ownership. GPAC has expressed theoretical interest in renting the space, but again, it would require us being actual landlords... and the disdain they have for us when we only ask a pittance of the money they cost us would only likely multiply if they were paying more. It's for this reason we haven't bothered to collect even the 1/5th we originally agreed to. They've also expressed interest in buying the building, which initially we were not very interested in due to concerns about our impressions that they were becoming a divisive and aggressive presence within the neighborhood, but we've come around on this point and are now willing to sell to anyone who intends to use the building personally rather than speculate on its increasing real estate value. In a second ironic twist, we've taken some heat for daring to consider choosing certain buyers over others based on our opinions about their politics, but we're pretty sure that GPAC wouldn't wish us to sell to developers, who would probably pay the best. Incidentally, our consideration of discriminating between buyers at all was never based on the belief that we know better than anyone else what's best for all the stakeholders in the neighborhood, but on the fact that, like it or not, we were in the position of having to choose and felt we should possibly do so based on our best effort. We certainly don't envy the next owners of the building who will step into this position. Also, GPAC wants the power to choose who uses the space themselves... so suggesting we're wrong for considering the impact of which buyer we select feels a little hypocritical to us. Their main argument for them getting to choose seems to be that there are more of them than there are of us. Is a bigger group always better at making complex calls than a smaller group? If so, why is GPAC a closed group with a small decision-making body at it's center?

The last thing we want to address here is the class elephant in the room. To a large extent we feel that this is irrelevant to the current situation, but it has been repeatedly brought up by GPAC, which constantly claims solidarity with working people, so we want to be clear on this point. We are a couple with a young child, expecting another in February, and we work just like most people to get by. James does construction work within an egalitarian business structure that he organized, Laura does copywriting when time permits, and we both take odd jobs when we can get them. During the period we have owned this building and hoped to use it as a helpful community resource, we have rarely owned a working vehicle, often lacked health insurance, and at times lived from month to month with no savings and no guarantee of work. For those who aren't familiar with the area, in Pittsburgh it is often cheaper to buy property than to rent, so this certainly shouldn't be enough to stigmatize us. It's undeniably true that at one point we were privileged to have the funds to buy this building. It's also true that we've always tried to use whatever resources we feel we can spare to support our community and the radical causes we believe in, and we frequently donate our time and energy as well as sharing material resources to further this goal.

We didn't intend to comment further on the specific financial issues involved here, but as GPAC statements have repeatedly brought up these details, we want to set a few things straight. We were able to buy the building because several years ago (2004) we received a generous financial gift from a friend. When this occurred, we had some misgivings because of the potential fallout from this (such as this situation!), and we strongly questioned the best course to take. At this time, we consulted many other anarchists about what they would do if they, for example, won the lottery, and while almost all professed their interest in supporting radical projects, most also indicated that caring for friends and family and buying property or land would be high on their lists. We thought about many options: should we donate all or most of the money to organizations? Hand out a dollar to each person we met on the street until it was all gone (the most equitable)? In the end, we gave quite a bit to friends and local projects we supported to do anything of their choosing, did some traveling (partially for work training), bought some things we wanted and needed (primarily equipment for our work, including music), and ended up living through some times of slow work availability. However, the largest chunk of the money went into purchasing a commercial property for ~$60,000, which we hoped to use for community purposes. At the time, we had previously owned a very inexpensive house (under $20,000) that we lived in with housemates, but eventually due to increasing violence including deadly shootings on our block, we decided to sell that house (for zero profit), put the proceeds of the sale directly into fixing up the building to a livable state, and move to the third floor of the commercial space. While we never wanted to live in the building, since moving in, we've spent another ~$20,000 in paid labor and material improvements to the building including completely repairing the water and drain systems for the building, replacing the roof, and removing two dumpsters of debris, etc... James has personally put in about six months of hard labor on the building, often working from the time he woke up to when he went to sleep at night so that we could safely live here more quickly. This is much more work than members of GPAC, collectively, have ever contributed to the space. Our current hope in selling the building is to walk away from the sale with between $80,000 and $100,000, or in essence to at least get out the $80,000 that we put in and get up to $20,000 compensation for James' half year of hard labor. We have never included any increased value from GPACs renovations in our calculations, as we have no interest in profiting from this. If anyone believes that GPAC's statements that we intend to sell the building for three times what we paid for it due to gentrification are more accurate than our claims, we can provide complete documentation of the price we paid initially and the price we are asking, and partial documentation of the materials and labor we've put into the space. Aside from concern that whoever buys the building from us may be looking to flip the building and capitalize on inflation, we have no interest in artificially increasing property values in the area. The work we did wasn't for luxuries in the building, but again, simple necessities, hazard removal (lots of lead), water, gas and electrical work, roof, etc...

We realize that overall our situation isn't the most ideologically pure, but we have had to approach our decisions as human questions rather than just anarchist questions. Should we have turned down the money that was offered to us? Possibly, but we don't believe that most people including activists would have made that choice. Should we have shared the money with a group, or should we share it more fully now? Maybe, but if we had/did, that group certainly wouldn't be GPAC. It's odd to us that the entitlement GPAC now seems to feel to the space is based on a combination of our willing contribution and their construction work (by which standard we should still be more entitled, since we have done much more work). We ask anyone who owns property or a savings account and prefers to control the contents of it until a new social order is established to consider how comfortable they feel determining a precise financial cutoff above which these principles should no longer apply, and in particular to consider the merits of setting the bar for automatic class enmity as low as a family with up to $100,000 in total assets including home equity. (If this is within an unacceptable range, how much lower does that range extend? $50,000 per family? $10,000? The associated implication that renting is morally superior to buying property since the payments go to a landlord permanently and don't build up equity for the occupant is also somewhat baffling.) Fundamentally, the fact is that this building is our home, in addition to whatever else it might be, and up to this point we have been voluntarily sharing it. Yes, we're lucky that due to circumstance we may have the opportunity to sell it and move, which we realize isn't an opportunity open to everyone (although we're fairly certain that some mobility of living situation is a privilege available to most members of GPAC). But considering the fact that we're soon to be a family of four currently living in a one-room apartment and aspiring to move to a modest house in a working-class neighborhood (one with less danger of gentrification), we feel that the disrespect we're getting for this decision is highly disproportionate at best (and we wonder how many of our detractors voluntarily share a room with three roommates so they'll have more resources to spare for activist work).

Critiques and conflicts notwithstanding, we have made no efforts to end the verbal/written agreement early, despite GPAC violating many of the terms themselves, often involving legal and safety issues. We gave them three months warning of our decision to leave. We hope that this situation can be resolved peacefully although it is becoming increasingly nerve-wracking to live in close proximity a group that clearly considers us the enemy and utilizes aggressive tactics. We have never used lawyers, police, or development organizations to intimidate or act against GPAC in any way, and have no interest in doing so. We're not sure why this implication is being tossed around, as it is completely unfounded. In fact, our limited interactions with developers and police have been 100% in support of GPAC's effort...we've fielded a lot of complaints from people in the neighborhood, local organizations and developers about GPAC, but always asserted that GPAC was attempting to be a community service organization with a commitment to local concerns. We wanted this collaboration to work out, but clearly it hasn't. Over the years in question we have always tried to freely share the resources under our control that we felt we should spare, and for the most part all we've gotten in return is a lot of further expense, personal attacks, and worry. We wholeheartedly wish that we had chosen a group more trustworthy than GPAC to collaborate with in such a fundamental way, regret that we are now likely to be hated by people we haven't even met, and believe that we are being singled out as terrible offenders primarily because we're an easy target.

(This is a long statement as it stands, and would be much longer had we gone in depth into all the specific issues raised by both sides. We've tried to be slightly brief and to the point, but we are willing to discuss any aspect of this subject in depth with any seriously interested party. We believe that most of GPAC's criticisms of us are unfounded and many of their statements have been downright false.)

In Our Defense: An Owners' Perspective on the GPAC Space Issue | 39 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Authored by: GPAC on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 06:54 PM UTC

This statement is from two property owners and landlords who are actively evicting a group of working-class anarchists from one of Pittsburgh's only anarchist social centers. Infoshop News shouldn't be helping them spread their misinformation and ridiculous lies.

Authored by: no majesty on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 09:30 PM UTC

Mostly, it sounds to me like ya'll got a good deal on a spot where you didn't have to pay rent, and now you expect the building owners to modify their lives (i.e. not move into a reasonable family dwelling) to fit your own convenience. That seems pretty entitled.
One constructive option (at least, more constructive than engaging in conflict with people who are clearly NOT your most pressing enemy) would be to work with them to find a buyer who will continue to let you all use the ground floor. You may even have to start paying rent. Or try to buy the building yourselves, or move somewhere else. Shit doesn't always work out the way we want it to, and throwing a temper tantrum (veiled behind rhetoric of a dated class analysis) doesn't help anything.

Authored by: no majesty on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 09:40 PM UTC

I realize that a few points need to be clarified (which neither side appears to agree on) before I retract/affirm my previous statement:
are the owners in fact selling the property for 3 times what they bought it?
what portion of the value added to the estate was produced by GPAC's collective labor?

If, indeed as GPAC claims, they sweated away long hours working on the building, only to have their efforts bundled up into a landlord's wallet--well, fuck that. But if indeed the owners are correct in stating most of the building improvements came from contracted labor and their own work, then GPAC seems to have little ground to stand on.

Authored by: intifada-oner on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 09:56 PM UTC

There is likely no editorial process to screen for something like this, because its likely that in the entire history of anarchists publications something like this has never happened (so no fault can fall on the people who operate this site), but, this may be the first time in history where the interests of the bourgeoisie, straight from a bourgeoisie mouth itself, has been published by anarchists. The owners, exploiters of wage labor, extractors of surplus value giving their two cents on an anarchist news medium, the results; irony, terror, a little bit of both, strangely produced rich kid radicalism gone sour. I'm not being hasty, don't tell me to calm down, I'm quieting down to let you speak, OK, I hear you, what's that, oh, you say what about "Kropotkin supporting national war?" Let's remember that the Kropotkins stole their wealth from landless peasants, so what he published was, in fact, bourgeoisie interests from the mouth of an aristocrat.

Dictatorship is not a weapon of Capital, but rather a tendency of Capital which materialises whenever necessary. To return to parliamentary democracy after a period of dictatorship, as in Germany after 1945, signifies only that dictatorship is useless (until the next time) for integrating the masses into the State. We are not denying that democracy assures a gentler exploitation than dictatorship: anyone would rather be exploited like a Swede than like a Brazilian. But do we have a CHOICE? Democracy will transform itself into dictatorship as soon as it is necessary. - Giles Dauve

I also will not deny that there are qualitative differences between fascism and today's more subtle bourgeoisie democracy. Nor will I deny that there are differences between the bourgeoisie who wrote the above article and the fascists who may spam or troll this board. But, if we are against exploitation of one class over another, are the differences distinct enough to let the writer, the vampire of the working class, post on this board? If we are opposed to class as such, not just class-structure painted uglier by liberals, the answer is no.

Against the ruling class project and long live the free commune called Take Space!

solidarity

---
Revolution will be, among other things, an aspirin as large as the sun.

Authored by: nostalgia on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 10:04 PM UTC

The owner of the space continually tries to convey class in quantitative terms ("at a point we didn't have a car", etc) instead of understanding it as a qualitative relation between people based on their position in the economy. The fact that we work on the space and they stand to profit from it after evicting us doesn't depend on whether they own a lexus or a geo.

In regards to the amount the building is being sold for, that is constantly changing. A few months back the owners indicated a desire to sell it for $150,000-$200,000 which would in fact be 3 times what they paid for it 3 years earlier. In the past few days, after realizing that they won't be able to get a buyer to pay that amount, especially not in this economic state, they have offered lower (though constantly fluctuating) estimates.

Authored by: smokestack on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 02:28 AM UTC

I read the first few paragraphs of this letter from the defensive owners of a building who want to force out anarchists and sell it off to someone else to make money. Well that is a damn shame because the GPAC space is amazing and should be supported, kept, and fucking defended; I wish this was fucking copenhagen so good people putting in good time could have some fucking support for once. Sorry for using such band language but I think a lot of people could benefit form this because certain people on this site seem to miss the important points people make when discussing the difference between quantitative and qualitative change and the implications and actual meanings of owning property, fuck your property!

Anyway, back to the point, Who ever wrote this letter is so confused over what owning property actually means, having a bike and letting someone borrow that bike has nothing to do with our relation to private property or the social relationship created by capitalism. Don't try to make some socio-political point invoking class relations and property relations when you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Just because you use words like class, property, anarchist, working-class, etc...does not automatically make your point valid. First off, you need to understand the meaning of words and their implications/connection to your position/problem with GPAC. You pushing out anarchist to make money is just an asshole move and that makes you an enemy of revolutionary tendencies, you are an opportunist. Capitalist in the basic sense? maybe... but not that important.

You are a worse landlord than a regular landlord because landlords want to make money off their property in a sustaining manner to bring in a continuous revenue from renting out their properties. GPAC could rent another space, pay rent, and continue to carry out their projects from such a rented space but that is not your issue. From your letter, your words, it seems that GPAC and you went into an agreement and maybe GPAC were naive enough to think that you, a self-proclaimed something, would hold up your end of the deal as a friendly individual to radical political activities. Clearly you are an opportunist who would rather make money and run behind your "right" to do what you want with your bullshit building than hold up your end for wanting to create a better world, you hippie liberal pretending to be something else.

Do not assume just because you are "down" and make an asshole move that you aren't gonna get shit for it. What is the difference between you kicking out GPAC and some "real landlord" putting out GPAC? Your feelings, your rights, or whatever excuse you want to mask your own opportunist stance does not change the reality of what you want to do. hell no, you are not going to get some kind of pat on the back, "ahhh we understand you need to do what you need to do.."

the owners may not be the big bad capitalist but that doesn't exempt you from making asshole moves and effecting people and good projects in a negative manner. Are you a capitalist? well that can be debated but what you are doing is fucked up on principal. but yes you are right, you "own" the building, wow you own something how special, but just because you own something doesn't change the fact that you want to put out people and make money off of it. Do I need to remind you what you want to do? I will, you want to put out a anarchist collective space to make money and do whatever it is that you want to do with that money. do you have that right? sure you do, you own that building and you can do what you want with it. But that does not mean that you are immune to pissing people off and those people thinking of you as an asshole.

Wow, I mean how naive are you? you really thought that you would be able to put out an anarchist collective and not piss them off? Strange.

A Notice:

to all you fake ass anarchists and revolutionaries can you cash your checks, sell your property, and leave our movement and projects because, YES, you are worse than real landlords because you are real landlords. I am sorry that you feel guilty enough for fucking people over that you have to come on here and post your bullshit letter about how you are not the bad guy. Leave, we have heard it all before from your bigger brothers.

Also, I decided to call you an asshole and leave out a lot of class issues because I do not really view you as some capitalist oppressor of the working-class, I just call it like i see it.

---
lets build resistance worth romantics.

Authored by: N1h1l on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 08:42 AM UTC

These folks say that they can substantiate their claim that they have no intention of profiting from the sale of this property or GPAC's labor. Can GPAC substantiate its claim that the owners are attempting to sell at 3x the buying price, in excess of the money and labor contributed by the present owners? If not, color me skeptical.

It sounds like GPAC has the opportunity to buy a space from comrades at a below market rate. Maybe time spent fundraising for this would be more useful than web squabbling? I'd be curious to see how GPAC manages the challenges and responsibilities of owning a space.

Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 10:46 AM UTC

As the long time editor of Infoshop News, the only reason that I can think of based on our policies for why this shouldn't appear here is the fact that personal disputes between people are not helped when they are brought into online forums. In this case, we have anarchists on both sides of this dispute, thus several sides to this story. They should all have their say.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, at the knee jerk arguments made here that suggest that the owners of this building are evil landlords or somehow represent the interest of the "bourgeoisie." That latter argument is a good illustration of why anarchists are never taken seriously. Most people instinctively avoid and dislike people who abstract complicated interpersonal situations into political causes.

I'm sympathetic here to the property owners, mostly because I have years of experience organizing similar anarchist infoshop projects. Our infoshop project here in Kansas City is currently undergoing a similar situation, but our "landlord" is not an anarchist. He is a well-respected community activist. I can understand why GPAC members are upset about these developments--they've had a sweet deal--but I also can relate to the owners who have to do things to exist in this capitalist economy. The real bad guys here is capitalism, which forces friendly property owners to these things. Of course, if GPAC had some money, then they could probably work something out with the owners.

One of the things that has soured me on infoshops and anarchist projects in general are the self-destructive attitudes that anarchists bring to such projects. Yes, money and capitalism suck, but you have to have money to operate these spaces. Even if you get a sweet deal on rent, there are still utilities to be paid. If you run a bookstore out of an infoshop, then there are all of the costs associated with running a small business. You *can't* get around these costs. The only way around them is to be an infoshop that tables at events.

It's been my experience that the so-called "anarchists" who whine the loudest about paying rent and expenses to run an infoshop are usually the ones who won't even put their own sweat equity and volunteer time to run the project. They are simply moochers and complainers. Some of them are probably sleeping on the couches of some of our readers this morning.

I think that some anarchists involved in infoshop projects confuse the physical space with the infoshop project. An infoshop is really a collective of individuals and their network of supporters in the community. The physical space is important to an infoshop project, but an infoshop shouldn't be married to one physical location. Many infoshops have had multiple locations during their histories. Our infoshop here in KCMO has existed in 3 locations. I've spent many hours--probably more hours than any other volunteer--on remodeling and improving our spaces. If anybody should have misgivings about our infoshop leaving a space that we've fixed up, it would be me. It is hard to contemplate the infoshop leaving a space, but at the same time, I understand that an infoshop isn't the physical space. We've had a good run of 2.5 years in our current space. But I recently suggested to people involved in our infoshop that they move the project if they can't work things out with the landlord.

I've dealt with three landlords int he course of operating two infoshops in Washington, DC and Kansas City. In the case of D.C., our collective mostly dealt with the landlords, who were a nonprofit. I left that project shortly after they opened their physical space (because I moved to KC). I was told later that the nonprofit landlords were a big headache.

Our first landlord here in Kansas City is a locally famous artist and entrepeneur. Aside from his personality quirks, he was pretty good to us, especially given that we were an infoshop/business just starting out. He was responsive to our concerns about the building and issues like heating. The rent was probably too high, but we were paying it. The ironic thing about our current space, which is much bigger and has cheaper rent, is that our infoshop can't make rent.

I've been working with our current landlord for over three years. Most of the active members in our infoshop haven't known him for more than a year. He's a good guy who has given us a sweet deal on rent and our space. He's also allowed our thriving collective bike shop to run a space in our building. He can be difficult to deal with sometimes and he's a poor communicator, but he supports our project. He's been upset lately that our infoshop hasn't been paying him rent. I sympathize with him, because our infoshop should be able to make that cheap rent easily if we had our organization together. He is not a greedy landlord, but a poor person just trying to keep the utilities turn on in the building. He is also sincerely interested in seeing this poir part of the city come back from the ruins. The anarchists involved in our project have this tendency to view him as a landlord and not understand where he is coming from. I've criticized this in meetings. I understand my comrades frustration with the communication issues, but at the same time, we should be able to pay that rent (and the rest of our debts, like the ones we owe to AK Press and Slingshot).

Chuck

Authored by: intifada-oner on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 12:03 PM UTC

The situation is not entirely clear but it is NOT a kneejerk reaction to call the landowner, in this case, bourgeoisie. There are of course petty-bourgeoisie landowners and, of course, this is also a relationship, as anarchists we wish to completely abolish. But in fact, the landowner, in this situation, is the heir to a fortune from what some people call (not I but it makes things somewhat clearer) the monopoly era of capitalism. That is, the landowner lives off the the dead labor of wage earners since the beginning of the 20th century, 1918 to be exact.

Making this a personal dispute hides the very REAL contradictions in capitalism that certainly exist in a situation like this. When the corporation was founded, which the the landowner is an heir, in the beginning of the century, there were strong unions and a workers movement to combat the exploitation of workers with anarchists openly involved in the movement. Now that the worker's movement is over, and capital exploits us ina kinder and gentler fashion, it only takes the appearance of a petty squabble, when in fact, looking at the situation closer we see: property bought by the bourgeoisie, workers build the property thereby add value to it, the bourgeoisie sells the product of labor for more in the capitalist market. If this is not bourgeoisie exploitation of living labor then it doesn't exist.

This has nothing to do with rich vs poor, that is ideological, it has to do with the reproduction and production of capitalist social relations. Of course, landowners and tenants will always be at odds with each other. Furthering this antagonism and finally superseding this relationship by finally negating it, is the only appropriate anarchist position on the issue. All others lack class analysis.

---
Revolution will be, among other things, an aspirin as large as the sun.

Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 12:09 PM UTC

It's good to know that you are reading political books about capitalism, but your opinions are too abstract to be of any use to this specific situation. Did you know that there are many anarchists out there who are property owners? Anarchists that are landlords? Sure, you can criticize them with some political analysis, but you miss the fact that even anarchists have to make concessions in order to live within capitalism.

Chuck

Authored by: veranasi on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 04:05 PM UTC

Let's get a couple things straight: first, unless you are calling the landlords middle class calling them bourgeois is inappropriate. Second, the use of this word is ideological at its core. Further, what is the relationship of GPAC to the space? Are they/did they raise cash for the space or are their lives wrapped up in the running of the space like most activists? I like GPAC and wish them the best but this ideological war separating human from human is a bit odd. The argument being proposed is about who has legit access to property: a bourgie landlord or members of a bourgie sect of politics? None of this would be an issue if by chance GPAC could buy the space.

Authored by: nostalgia on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 12:37 PM UTC

"It's good to know that you are reading political books about capitalism, but your opinions are too abstract to be of any use to this specific situation."-Chuck0

Actually, intifada-oner knows the situation (and the owners of the building) rather well, so calm down.

"That latter argument is a good illustration of why anarchists are never taken seriously."-Chuck0

Anarchists aren't taken seriously because of a lack of logical consistency, and a general inability to comprehend objective social relations. It's clear that your views are entirely obscured by the subjective rantings of the owners of the building. You seem to lack a coherent understanding of the nature of social relations in a capitalist economy.

"I'm sympathetic here to the property owners"- Chuck0

Does the objective relationship between business owner and worker or landlord and tenant change because the building owner is part of some subculture tangentially related to anarchism? This anarchism of "well landlords suck, but that dude has a ponytail so it's different" fails to understand the actual dynamics of the relationship.

In regards to the comment about the building owners selling the building for 3 times what they bought it for, I will further elaborate. In previous meetings, the owners told our group that they intended to sell the building for approximately 3 times what they bought it for 3 years ago. In the past week, they have changed that amount. It became obvious to them that, despite their baseless claims to the contrary, (1) if the building were actually inspected and appraised, it would not be valued at the amount the stated earlier, and (2) in this market, no one is going to pay that much for the building. Currently they are giving estimates with a $45,000 dollar discrepancy between them.

My contention is that, despite the flux in quantitative values, our relationship remains the same. They own our labor, our lived activity, we do not. They own the work we put into the building, if there is a change in the amount they wish to sell the building for, we do not control that, they do.

Authored by: smokestack on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 12:56 PM UTC

I think Chuck makes a valid point regarding the position of these "landlords" in the grand scheme of things but his conclusions are just about as useful as chucks negative attitude regarding anything not in his favor as of late. I am surprised this story has not been taken down because it lacks sources. Sure we are all guilty of being extremely negative in our comments here on infoshop, maybe something we should all work on but not today.

I will not make this a class argument by making it a class argument. These landlords or "anarchist" building owners who have a lot of good feelings about things and wanted to have a community space/anarchist space seemed to have had that chance over and over again since they owned a building with a space that could have provided such a venue. What? So "self-proclaimed anarchist", since there are anarchists on both sides of the argument(HA!), owned a building with a space that could provide for a social center but never got around to having a social center in the building they owned? Why did it take someone else to create a social center inside the building owned by "anarchists" who wanted to have a social center in their building? And now they are going to move them out, not sign a lease that would honor their verbal contract, ah the good ol contract, and make it their mission to push out GPAC from a space? Strange.

But I am straying from the point, its a visible one, these "anarchists" own a building and are making it their mission to kick out GPAC. The owners are not interested in working with GPAC or figuring things out with GPAC or even sign a lease to honor an agreement made. A lease could potentially secure GPAC's social center after the "anarchist" owners sell off their building to someone else. I would rather take my chances with a regular old landlord who knows where his heart is, money/rent/revenue, than having to deal with these "anarchists" who seem too hyped on having an "owners perspective", their words not mine. Again they have the right to do what they want to with their building, they own it, but you can still be an asshole even if you are not a Big Bad Capitalist.

I am reminded of a situation in Copenhagen, though not totally the same, where the city government entered into an agreement with Ungdomshuset (Youth House) and years later turned around and sold off the property to a right-wing evangelical christian sect/cult...the result, riots, riots, and more riots, fire, fires, and more fires, fights, fights, and more fights...demonstration after demonstration which ended with the city responding with giving Ungdomshuset another building. They are similar because the city and owners, no matter if you are city government or "anarchists with an owner's perspective", are kicking people out of a space after having maded an agreement. That is just an asshole thing to do. If the "anarchists with an owner's perspective" really just want to sell the building then enter into an agreement with the new owners when selling the property that the social space has a lease and most be honored for a cetain amount of time....(these are just suggestions, I am sure that GPAC and some "anarchist building owners" could make an arrangement suited to their needs since there are "anarchists" on both sides of the argument.) Jesus, whats next? Starbucks is not truly a Big Bad Capitalist because they offer fair trade coffee and allow IWW union workers to work at their stores?

I think there is more to this situation than class relations, property rights, and the big picture that is capitalism; you anarchists are so good at always arguing the moralistic side of anti-capitalism and making those moralistic and sometimes silly arguments into anti-capitalist arguments. So why in this situation are people all of a sudden marxists and experts on relationships created by political-economy? I suggest that you just stick to your moralistic and sometimes hippie arguments as to why capitalism is bad and support GPAC on those good old basic grounds that you always support everything else on. Don't confuse yourselves with Marxist or communist analysis of capitalist class and social relations you are not any good at it and it just makes you look silly. If you cant understand why these "anarchists with an owner's perspective" are people with bad ideas based on class and social relations, don't, its not your style. Micheal Moore has a better grasp on class/social relations than a lot of people on here. Do we need to get Michael Moore to go to Pittsburgh and put a human face on this fucked up situation in order for people to see that "anarchists with an owner's perspective" are doing something fucked up? Please, just return to the solid anarchist arguments that these "anarchists with an owner's perspective" are bad people who do not want GPAC to be in their building now or even after they sell it, they are bad people, booo, shame on you....

Strange days, yes indeed strange days....I think people need to go back and watch Land and Freedom again, maybe a visual example is better for some. Think about GPAC and the "anarchists with an owner's perspectives" during the scene when the militia and towns people are discussing what to do with property. its pretty good. I hope people are more like David Carr and not Lawrence because clearly people are not anywhere close to identifying with the Irish, Spanish, German, and Italian revolutionaries in that scene who make a better point than most people on this damn thread.

Long live GPAC, see you on the cyberbarricades!

---
lets build resistance worth romantics.

Authored by: strangers on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 01:17 PM UTC

When you own the means of production, things aren't free anymore.

I remember when I started actually paying for copies of my zines: it was when my friends bought a risograph machine. It makes very, very cheap prints, but it's a lot more expensive than just scoring free copies. And people didn't understand why I would want to do that, when I could just keep finding random hook-ups here and there.

Anarchists -should- own property. We need to stop throwing money into the black hole called rent. Squatting or owning are a hell of a lot more ethical than renting. I mean, listen to some of these bizarre arguments, about how it's better to just rent from a landlord, cause then you know he's evil.

It's almost as though anarchists don't want to win. We are so enamored of our status as lower class that we wouldn't possibly want to change that. Back in the day, anarchists came from all walks of life, held all kinds of jobs. Anarchists took pride in their labor, for example. Now we're all just baristas? If I've got to work for a living, I might as well learn how to -do- something, like carpentry or something.
Anarchists need to be organizing worker-owned coffeeshops, not just working at other ones and stealing from their bosses. Sure, it's a hell of a lot more work, and maybe it isn't as sexy, but it means that <i>we can actually seize and control resources, dammit</i>. Seriously, y'all need to grow the hell up. You scream about anarchism as a subculture, as a ghetto or a bubble, and then you go and make it really, really clear that you're not in it to win, you're in it to have someone or something to fight.

George Engel owned a toyshop and got strung up by the neck for being an anarchist. His last words? "Hurrah for anarchy." (well, Hoch die anarchie, since he was German) I'm sure he meant it, even though he owned a store.

Authored by: basil on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 01:04 AM UTC

Strangers,

Think about what you are saying. "Anarchists, you too can be of the exploiting class!"

What we are talking about here has nothing to do with owning a machine to make your own copies. Yes, it is great when we have the means of life at our disposal. I am really pumped every morning when I wake up and have a teapot in which to brew my tea, and a lamp with which to read at night. But I still am forced to sell my labor and pay rent. My life is extracted from my body and turned into the cold dead capital that fills my landlords mailbox every month. Obviously we'd love to have our house and to not pay rent for it. But becoming a landlord is not the solution. Owning a house and exploiting others who live in it puts one on the other side of a very real class antagonism. This isn't an abstraction. If we want to end the misery of work, we need to end the relationship of property. You'd propose that 'winning' means being the on the other end of the hierarchy. We'd retort that winning means destroying that hierarchy.

Authored by: strangers on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 02:18 PM UTC

I didn't say that anarchists should be the exploiting class. I'm sorry it was interpreted that way. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have, or be, landlords or bosses. And that means we -shouldnt have them-. Not "we should begrudge them and steal from them," but that we -should not have bosses-. That means running our own shit, owning our own property. This entails a great deal more responsibility than simply accepting a class position of weakness.

If I was convinced that the folks who owned the building, the ones who wrote this article, were entering a traditional landlord situation, in which they making their living off of the property they owned rather than the work they did, I would be quite upset at them. I'm not convinced of this. The article seems to make a fairly solid refutation of GPAC's accusations. I would like to see GPAC defend themselves not by being like "OMG they're landlords and bad and we're so fuckin hip and down and we do graf and did we mention fuck them?" and instead reconsidering their case and figuring out exactly if and how they are being exploited and not just having their feelings hurt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that GPAC isn't a useful entity, that efforts shouldn't be made for it to continue to exist. I'm just frustrated at how quickly folks turn on anarchists who are attempting to actually seize control of resources in tangible ways within our society, because I think that by and large this is what we need to be doing... building solid communities, gathering resources, and instituting our anarchist economics.

Authored by: smokestack on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 01:19 PM UTC

Ok, after reading Intifada-oner and Nostalgia's newest posts, I just want to make it clear that they are a good example of people understanding the situation and providing sufficient evidence to back up their class/social relations analysis and are not the ones who should abstain from having, what i consider, a marxist or communist (as an autonomous social tendency) critique of these trust fund fucks.

I am going to make a grand claim, that is pointless, but please consider it, I here by command all trust funds fucks who are "down" remove your bodies and your minds from our movements, give us money if we need it but don't ever fucking think that your money can buy your authority over this movement. Your rules, regulations, and fucking financial ethics have no place here.

in solidarity!

---
lets build resistance worth romantics.

Authored by: pepsi on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 02:21 PM UTC

"they've had a sweet deal"
No, we have not.

"GPAC has the opportunity to buy a space from comrades"
How dare you use such a word to describe such a wretched relationship.

We, GPAC, are pissed because we worked our asses off to build a social center, up from rubble, into what it is today, a space where lots of activity happens for a variety of groups. We are pissed because we know people are going to side with the property owners because they threw the word "anarchist" in front of their name. We are pissed because our support will come from those who have a vested interest in the space, and the only ones who would build barricades and occupy, and resist, and defend are GPAC, it's comrades, and some graffiti writers, some neighborhood hood kids, and our friends.

What is concerning is that we don't take that crazy of a stance with our words and actions. We take radical ones, yes, but seemingly with the state of anarchism in Pittsburgh and America, a little too radical for most.

Copenhagen is a beautiful example of holding shit down, pushing autonomy and anarchism, and being honest.

Because honestly people were fucking pissed that the state can dictate where they live and how they act. Basically we are pissed for the same reason. But, this is not petty infighting, this is anarchists in struggle, continuing to struggle for what they want in life. This is not subcultural nonsense.

"It's been my experience that the so-called "anarchists" who whine the loudest about paying rent and expenses to run an infoshop are usually the ones who won't even put their own sweat equity and volunteer time to run the project. They are simply moochers and complainers. Some of them are probably sleeping on the couches of some of our readers this morning."

Well let me surprise you chuck0, that there are people that do give a fuck about struggle, that are not oogles, that do have jobs, pay rent, own homes, and still hate the system. Let me surprise you further by saying that members of GPAC have been involved with *damn near every* radical project in this city at one point or another. That we have raised over a grand each for the local peace and justice non profit, for graffiti writers, criminals, activists, anarchists, and damn near anyone else who we have ever had contact with. We have done more solidarity work than that of any other group.

And also if you bothered to read page 4 of substance, our publication, my nutsack was ripped the fuck open working on this damn building. and yes I sweated. So you sir, need to take that somewhere else, or come talk to me on my block.

So now since we do value physical space, since we do value the work that we do, we might buy the building. Yes, it is a long and complicated road. and unlike the owners the money will come from our pockets, not that of a trust fund.

Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 02:44 PM UTC

I'm not going to take my opinions somewhere else. You guys brought this dispute to a forum I moderate, so I'm going to express my opinion!

I find myself siding with the property owners more and more, but that's because I've been on the other side for so many years, yes, building projects from scratch with my own sweat and blood. If I've learned *anything* from my experience, it's that activist/ radical rhetoric does little towards finding solutions to these situations.

Chuck

Authored by: intifada-oner on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 11:06 AM UTC

"I find myself siding with the property owners more and more"

Wow, I've been using this site since I was a teenager, raised on the anarchist faq, and now that I'm way too old for my attachment to anarchist/revolutionary "politics" to be respectable (I'm way past the age where it can no longer be a fad), it blows my mind to read this from you. I remember distinctly, you supporting all the "post-leftist" position, yesterday's radical stance within the movement and being like "fuck yeah the admin is on the right side." I am not talking shit, I'm just really disappointed to read this from you.

---
Revolution will be, among other things, an aspirin as large as the sun.

Authored by: talonx on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 05:22 AM UTC

Reactionary talk seems to have been very constructive up to this point (sarcasm). Perhaps, just maybe, you should try and set up some sort of moderated discussion. Remediation is always a possibility among those with ideas more similar than different. I would say that given the so-called 'landlords' want to post on Infoshop they obviously have some stake in being seen as anarchists thus any talk of them as being 'false anarchists' or 'worse than landlords' seems hyperbolic and mean-spirited. Have you even tried having a structured discussion with them? Or, has it just been alot of yelling and name calling (from either side).

Even though the so-called 'landlords' have avoided saying this, it really looks like you've damn near bled them dry -- ideaologically as well as financially.

Authored by: CaseyFord on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 04:01 PM UTC

For sure, fixing up and maintaining a storefront is definitely bleeding them dry.

Authored by: talonx on Monday, November 09 2009 @ 01:10 PM UTC

If that was sarcasm, it only furthers the argument I've just made... "reactionary ..."

Again, seems like you have one side, the so-called 'landlords' looking to talk it out, and then you have the other side just spitting all over the place instead of finding words to come to terms with the situation.

From what it sounds like, seems that GPAC hasn't kept up its side of the bargain when it comes to promises made. These 'landlords' have gone beyond if they have kept up the relationship regardless. Sounds like an unecessary loss to me.

Note: I hesitate to call anyone a 'landlord' that is willing to make 'promises' in place of contracts. 'Promises' are more so elements of charity and community.

Authored by: smokestack on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 01:57 PM UTC

strangers are you sure? why work or slave for yourself at some collectively run working place where you are probably going to have to work harder and not steal because if you steal then you are stealing from your collective. I mean there are a lot of different perspectives, needs, and desires of different people to work or work in collectively run places. Fine, but that doesnt change the fact that people are not understanding what owning property actually means. Again owning a bike or owning a print machine contraption does not make you an owner of property in context to the means of production. also, if we are going to have a discussion on ownership then lets do that, but not here, here we can discuss how people are being unfair to other people who want to run a space inside someone else's building.

in reference to strangers' crtiticism on renting, I think that renting a building and throwing away money into the black hole that is rent can be tactically useful because people or organizations can remain fluid rather than trapped by owning a building and not having capital to make it turn around. but ya, if they want to buy the building good, whatever. lets get back to the point, GPAC is being threatened to leave the property...what does that mean besides owners of a building wanting to remove GPAC for their own monetary interests?

---
lets build resistance worth romantics.

Authored by: Al Ligator on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 11:16 AM UTC

Fuck the class war when it hits close to home right, and not just at some summit? Fuck that! That's the only way we'll make these things relevant and tangible in our lives.

Someone may not be a "bad person" because they are a landlord or a cop, but the social role they have chosen makes them someone who exploits another. (Although, I personally see 'exploitation' as a negative personality characteristic myself) If you don't want to be on the receiving end of proletarian revolt, don't exploit other people... simple as that.

We do intend to spread anarchy and live communism...

Authored by: intifada-oner on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 12:12 PM UTC

This short post is probably the best description and analysis I've seen of the weakness and lack of insight that continues to plague the so called "anarchist scene." Great show fam, you summed up everything in a few sentences. This post should be given its own headline, republished in paper, and widely distributed.

For most of this decade "anarchists" foolishly spent their time trying to paint George Bush and finance ministers who meet at summits as evil, neglecting government and capitalist tyranny in our daily lives. Of course, no one cares about what we do or say, when we spend all our time trying to convince people that presidents and bankers, are the devil or something ridiculous. Now that an actual problem presents itself, you people can actually say ridiculous things like "oh but maybe the landlord is a good guy." Maybe this is news, but capitalism isnt about good or bad people, or the forces of good vs. evil (what are we militant christians or something), it is a social relationship based on exploitation. Revolutionaries oppose this relationship.

I'm sure many of us have had bosses and landlords that are nice people, but nevertheless, one doesn't oppose them if they become mean but because their interests in the relationship between boss and worker and landlord and tenant are antagonistic to ours. Andrew Carnegie gave millions away, even to the people who were crushed in his factories, was he a good guy now too? Would you tell Berkman not stab Frick because they did some nice things like give the public libraries and schools?

---
Revolution will be, among other things, an aspirin as large as the sun.

Authored by: Al Ligator on Friday, November 06 2009 @ 12:08 PM UTC

A little bit off-topic, but you mention something about wealthy people giving to the community, one example that stands out in my head is at a few libraries I've been to, they brag about how Bill Gates donated computers to them, as if it was an act of mutual aid, but it was in fact for 2 reasons:
1. that shit is tax deductible
2. put more computers in more places - people use computers more - the culture becomes more and more centered around computer technology, and of course Bill Gates profits off that.

But now back to the topic of class struggle...

Authored by: smokestack on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 12:49 PM UTC

I would have to agree with Intifada-oner in stating that the previous post sums up all the issues in about 5 sentences, amazing.

Though we may have some differences regarding regarding what constitutes a capitalist I am in total agreement that class/social relations are in play here and need to be confronted and understood. Also, the issue is not whether someone is nice or mean regarding class/social relations but in personal relationships it does matter. Capitalist and capitalist like individuals or petty-bourgeoisie trust fund subculturalists can exploit people and can also be nice or mean while they are doing it. It doesnt matter if someone conducts their exploitation or takes advantage of groups or other individuals in a nice way, it is still exploitation or taken advantage or someone. And maybe Intifada-oner and others are current here in making this clearly a class issue, because the class/social relationships seem to be based on a class divide and their social relationships are being dictated by those who have the upper hand and have the privlege of being trust fund, heirs to wealth created long ago by an exploited on mass working class.

long live GPAC!

---
lets build resistance worth romantics.

Authored by: corporatecrimina on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 04:15 PM UTC

Goddamn! Look at those before and after photos that Pepsi posted a link to above. No wonder GPAC is upset after doing all that work and not being able to stay in the space. That's not just running a mop over the floor or throwing up some paint, that's serious structural improvements on the space and it's bound to increase the property value. They claim that they didn't take that into consideration, but that seems hard to believe.

If the owners want to move, I don't see how anyone can complain about that. But it only makes sense that if they don't sign a lease or otherwise try to secure GPAC's position in the building or at least donate a portion of the profits to GPAC in exchange for the labor put into the space.

I agree that there are real class issues here based on the social relationships that result from capitalism. But it seems like both sides are trying to have it both ways. The building owners are trying to play at poverty by describing the precarity of their employment (they're uninsured, work odd jobs, etc.) but gloss over the position they're in as property owners. On the other side, some of the arguments here are saying it doesn't matter that they're nice or "so-called anarchists" or part of the subculture because they're still landlords, owners and the bourgeoisie. But GPAC wanted to have a space without paying rent and they got it because they found sympathetic owners. So it seems a little disingenuous to pretend that the fact that the owners view themselves as part of an activist community is irrelevant.

Authored by: nostalgia on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 05:26 PM UTC

"I would like to see GPAC defend themselves not by being like "OMG they're landlords and bad and we're so fuckin hip and down and we do graf and did we mention fuck them?" and instead reconsidering their case and figuring out exactly if and how they are being exploited and not just having their feelings hurt."

I've already explained all of these things. So does the GPAC statement. So does another personal statement that was written about the situation that was submitted to the site (and, not surprisingly, denied). The fact that the statement of a property owner evicting an anarchist social center was published and an account from a member of the group evicted denied is a sad testament to the sad state of this site.

"I'm just frustrated at how quickly folks turn on anarchists who are attempting to actually seize control of resources in tangible ways within our society"

The conflict with capitalist relations is based on our positions in the economy, it is the assertion of our needs and desires as a class. It doesn't discriminate between people at the other end of the economic relation because of their characterization of themselves.

This type of reasoning echoes the prevalent green-consumer trend in liberal circles today. Objective relations are disregarded as soon as the individual in power identifies themselves in familiar terms, "I'm an environmentalist/woman/person of color/punk/hippie/yoga instructor/anarchist".

Why do I care if some hippie "seizes control" of a resource if they are willing to do nothing with it to further social struggle? It was an unbelievably difficult task to convince them them to let an anarchist group use (and renovate) the first floor, it sat vacant and rotting for the first 2 and a half years that they owned it.

To clarify a misconception, we know these people. We've known them since we were kids. We see them everyday. We are not engaging in an abstract political dialogue here, we are expressing our real relationship with them.

We have always known that we weren't like them, and our cohabitation of a subculture didn't change our fundamental differences. They don't deny receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from trust funds and and other free money.

To respond to the notion of "it's an awesome deal, why did you take it if you didn't want it" I can only say that the same thing is stated in all capitalist relations. "You hate your boss, why did you take the job? You could have worked somewhere else. You hate all bosses? Be your own boss." We entered this agreement because there is a need for a social center in our city.

It's becoming more apparent that, for the most part, the most recent incarnation of anarchism (1999 and on generally, or, more specifically, the post anti-war period from 2006 on) is all too often more an expression of extreme liberalism than a relative of other anti-capitalist tendencies (libertarian communism, etc). It is the anarchism of anti-corporatism and anti-summit meetings, not of anti-capitalism. It is a dirty ass failure.

Authored by: Admin on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 06:06 PM UTC

"So does another personal statement that was written about the situation that was submitted to the site (and, not surprisingly, denied). The fact that the statement of a property owner evicting an anarchist social center was published and an account from a member of the group evicted denied is a sad testament to the sad state of this site."

This is patently false. If any such article was rejected, it was rejected because it failed to meet our basic editorial standards. Now, I don't remember deleting any account that is alluded to here, so I'm skeptical that it was ever submitted.

It's pretty sad that some of you are whipping yourself into an ideological lather about this situation. If you are going to insist on wearing those ideological blinders, you are going to blunder around when you actually try to run a day-to-day project like an infoshop or community center. These situations are always compelex and don't lend themselves to simplistic, binary assumptions about one side being good and one side being bad.

Chuck

Authored by: nostalgia on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 05:53 PM UTC

"We have never included any increased value from GPACs renovations in our calculations, as we have no interest in profiting from this."

How, exactly, do you subtract the value GPAC added from the amount the building is sold for (unless you intend on knocking down all those walls, breaking down the doors, and removing the electrical wiring)? How is it that the work we put in doesn't increase value but the work you put in does? So when someone buys the building their money, an indifferent object, chooses to abstain from representing the repairs on the first floor, as they will be excluded from the amount paid for the building?

When the building is inspected, will you tell them to ignore anything that we did ("yeah, you know what inspector, just break all that shit right there, fuck GPAC")? When it is appraised, will you tell them to ignore what the see and show them a picture of the first floor in the state you left it in a year ago?

You, my friends, are tripping.

Authored by: talia on Friday, November 06 2009 @ 01:20 PM UTC

I don't know. I've been in that apartment and I wouldn't want to raise two kids in it either. I've been to GPAC and I think it's a pretty awesome space.

I hope GPAC can find a way to buy the building and keep itself going. That seems like the best case scenario possible.

Authored by: ISHI on Saturday, November 07 2009 @ 02:19 AM UTC

these are the kinds of discussions i actually like to follow, though unfortunately in general they don'ty lead very far if anywhere.

i guess my own view is, based on experience, if i am part of some community with some sort of common agenda, then i wouldn't share a space if i had access to or ownership of one with members of my group unless the group actually had some sort of group interaction. If part of the terms of the deal was that GPAC had their space, while the owners had theirs, as far as i'm concerned in general its bound to fail as a collective (eg 'social' anarchist) excercize. (Or rather, it will probably follow the same dynamics of these sorts of projects in society----it will be basically a market/democracy relationship, whatever labels people use to describe themselves. People tend to be people, above all, and all the talk about the other stuff ('christian', brother', 'comrade') obscures this 'truth'. They may have commonalities, but in general other things (owenership, family, finances...) can override any other concepts, except for a few 'true beleivers' who are 'committed to the struggle' or are 'saints' or 'heroes'. But that itself is just another common role.
People can rent or barter, but basically everyone is on their own, doing their own thing or agenda, and its a common tendency even if people aren't inherintly greedy or evil, for people to try to profit or squeeze as much as they can out of their end of some bargain. This is especially true if what sounds like went on with this project----the people actually never got along really, and people felt hurt by that apparently--- the owners-----so throwing people out basically can be seen not so much as profiting, but rather of recouping losses. ( I find it hard to imagine how sharing a space with 'comrades' is possible without interacting. Actually I can-----families themselves often share spaces and essentially do not interact or communicate. And in many cases, its because 'we are busy' (working to buy the second car, bailing out someone who didnt need to but shopflifted as some sort of statement, doing graffitti promoting some crusade).
I personally, if i had a space, might not even like a project like this----graffitti, benefits, protests, etc. (And maybe there is a nuclear familiar another spot.) Its all propoganda about 'anarchy is the answer', including alternative economics like that space deal----when in fact, the people involved basically really don't have it together so they may not really be a good example. Its a bit boring, though 'spectacular' (false opposition).

I actually feel the same about infoshops i've experienced. To me, too often they actually are not about really building an anarchist alternative. They are basically places where people who don't agree can all put their products on a shelf to sell since walmart won't----the primitivists and the workerists, the class warriors and the tenured radicals, the reactionaries and the social warriors. Also, sometimes they are places basically for a clique of some sort who while promoting the idea that one is creating some new non-exclusive, non-hierarchical society, actually just have created a little pond where they are the big fish. And last, and even worse, some of these places seem to be 'business incubators' where people i basically don't like (eg derreck Jensen and that apparently very well off guy whor writes from his new condo those garbage, simplistic style books with some weird name about wise monkees and returning to nature) get their start for building their cults before going on, say, NPR. F-k that (Green Day recuperated stuff long ago already).

I'd say the ananrchist scene is not taken seriously because it doesnt really take itself seriously. Its similar to 'sunday morning christianity'.

In both cases it does serve a purpose because the 'status quo' is actualy not that bad for the majority of radicals or people, or they can put up with it. (It seems more often in my area 'grad school', and NGO, or maybe some kind of real easy if not exactly highly paid job (eg dogwalking---likely for people so busy passing and enforcing laws and making big money they dont have time to walk their own dog ) is a big deal. I saw some german guy recently talk about squatting and gentrification in this pretty yupped out place to a 95% white audience recently, in a neihborhood wghich till 10 years ago or so was at least 90% black. Tell me about it. We'll go to the bar, have a beer, and do some radical critical art. (I went across the street to get me a High Gravity 8.5%, and the people there (behind the bullet proof glass) were kind of like, uhhh---your corner or ours? )

Having a 'big tent' I guess is the way to develop a mass movement, but its too much like general m/ass production.

I do think the general principle is what the administrator said which is that alternative situations are built by people who have been so conditioned by this society that too often they fall into the exact same patterns. (I actually see this when you have famous radicals who later turn into drug addicts, etc---people just give up, and give in. One lesson is to try not to take on too much because ---- despite the idea that 'a few determined opeople can change the world' (margaret mead) ----too often it would be better to try to get more to help, because otherwise the chandge will be pretty limited ('the 8 hour day') .

The issue of 'trust funds' is very interesting. One thing people can remember is that actually, that part of Pa. originally was the territory of indigenous people, so any currently exploited people themselves often are profiting. (And most people actually are both exploiters and exploited, because when they go to a store they are participaitng in some worker's oppression quite commonly (or by using a computer they are decimating the Congo for its minerals).
One question is 'amount'. If in fact these are trust fund babies, they can't be really rich, otherwise they could just give away the building. So, how much if anything is too much? Its also possible now that in a sense some of that is possibly owed to dependents (unless they are set free to survive in ther wilds of pittsburgh). That may have been preventible by using birth control, but same is true of anyone. Whose needs are legitimate?

so, maybe this sort of group should have studied a bit the issue of 'why can't we live in the sky' like TI:
http://www.axiomsandchoices.blogspot.com

Authored by: HPWombat on Saturday, November 07 2009 @ 09:55 AM UTC

Sounds like the best ethical response is for anarchists to never rent space to anarchists nor rent space from anarchists. I don't like landlords, especially the idea of anarchist landlords, but I also typically handle my bills. If you are going to be crappy with your bills, you can't expect your landlord to be happy about it. Writing political statements about a landlord because you aren't keeping up with bills seems pretty disingenuous.

---
embrace the dork side

Authored by: Admin on Sunday, November 08 2009 @ 11:01 AM UTC

To put it more broadly, why should people pay attention to anarchists and their big dreams of reorganizing society if anarchists can't keep a simple project like an infoshop going?

Chuck

Authored by: Al Ligator on Sunday, November 08 2009 @ 01:28 PM UTC

After seeing that comment, I want to respond but can't begin to think of where to begin to respond to something like that. There is so much that still needs to be discussed within our movement... that isn't being talked about.

It urges me to brings actual discussions of 'insurrectionary' anarchism into it (actually meaning - to fight here and now instead of waiting for revolution, or dealing with 'building' something in the current context of this unsustainable death culture we reside in, - and not what people pass for insurrectionary ideas or others shoddy strawmen critiques of them).

I have used this quote before, but it begs to be used again:
"Underground presses cannot survive within capitalist society... they are created IN ORDER TO DESTROY capitalist relations" - Fredy Perlman

Should we constantly be trying to 'survive' in a constantly changing (but yet always the same) unsustainable undesirable way of life? Honestly, when do we stop and try different things? When do we start from scratch again and shed our previous projects to try something new?

Also, speaking of said infoshops, my experiences are limited, so maybe others have had better experiences, but does the general public actually use the infoshop, or is it more preaching to the choir, this question isn't being brought up to attack those who run infoshops, I actually like infoshops, but it begs the question - is a project like that fulfilling its desired goal?
I really wanna know, cause I want to live differently before I die, I don't want to repeat the same projects and continue getting the same results. I want us to be CONSTANTLY critiquing what we are doing and how we could be doing it better. This is out of sincerity, once again, not to bash those who work in infoshops.

Let's be honest about our successes and not overly critical and negative where we needn't be, and let's be honest about our failures and reassess what we're doing wrong and not celebrate things that keep us going in circles.

Authored by: Admin on Sunday, November 08 2009 @ 06:51 PM UTC

Our infoshop In Kansas City, especially in its current location, has always done an excellent job of reaching and serving the general public. If it had been better funded and had more volunteers, we probably would have been serving the general public much more than the "choir." I also think that if our bookstore operation had been better capitalized, we would have really connected with the general public around the city, not just folks in that neighborhood.

Chuck

Authored by: smokestack on Saturday, November 07 2009 @ 07:44 PM UTC

on ya and Long live GPAC!

---
lets build resistance worth romantics.

Main Menu

Submit Articles and Events

Follow Infoshop on ...

User Functions

Recent I-News Features

Infoshop Hot Links

Independent Media

Blogroll

Other Infoshop News

Events

Poll

Older Stories

Sunday 07-Feb

Saturday 06-Feb

Friday 05-Feb

In Our Defense: An Owners' Perspective on the GPAC Space Issue

What's Related

Story Options

Trackback