Authored by: ISHI on Saturday, November 07 2009 @ 04:19 AM CST

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

[ Reply to This | # ]