Autonomous Anonymous - 12-step plan for setting up a social centre in Dublin

dublin | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Monday June 13, 2005 11:26

by Ex

For the creation of an autonomous space

12 point plan for a social/autonomous centre in Dublin.

1. A 'social' centre does not mean solely a place for socialising; the word stems from the 'movement of the social' or 'socialism' (in the broadest possible definition of the word) as opposed to the movement of capital, i.e. capitalism. Across Europe, which has a long established tradition of the social, these social centres are part of a much wider fabric of resistance and culture than the mere buildings in which they are housed.

2. An 'autonomous' centre means that the centre is distinct and independent of state and commerical reliances. It both acts independently of and in opposition to forces of oppression and mediocrity. Autonomous in that it seeks to exist beyond the realm of money and control.

3. Historically Ireland does not have the same tradition of the movement of the social that other European countries do. The pyschopolitical geography of the civil war split means that we live in a country with a consistent 75% vote for right-wing parties, who favour big business and capital. Therefore any attempts to create a centre must take this into account. We cannot simply mirror the experiences and methods of our neighbours; we must learn from them but also put them into play in a highly localised context.

4. With this in mind, support must be sought among all movements of the social here, including those who may not necessarily agree with one another, or the methods of a group attempting to set up a centre. Practically, this entails calling an assembly of all interested and related parties, including homeless support networks, community groups, residents associations, artists, musicians, bored teenagers, housing and tenant organisations, local representatives, squatters, building co-operatives, housing trusts, and so on. If a centre is to be a part of the movement of the social, then it must aim to encompass many different disparate elements within it. Reaching beyond existing circles of contact must be prioritised.

5. A centre must be autonomous from the movement of capital. In this city, this includes the members of the landlord/property-owning class. To this end, a centre should and must be located in a disused/unoccupied building. Every dog in the street knows that "rent money is dead money". Contributing money to landlords only perpetuates the misery of spiralling and unaffordable rents, property speculation, neglect and dereliction. Occupying empty and unused buildings is a strong, loud affirmation of rejection of these values.

6. At the proposed [4.] meeting, a group attempting to set up a centre should fully explain their intentions and reasons behind occupying a derelict building. This will facilitate discussion - and more than likely disagreement and dispute - within the various attendees. Nevertheless there is support among many against continued dereliction of buildings, particularly in inner city areas where large tracts of land and/or housing are left rot by speculators and developers, to the detriment of local communities. People not within the "activist" subculture may not neccesarily support "illegal" actions; this is where debate and discourse must occur to elaborate on why the law should be changed. Full minutes, notes, attendance etc should be taken at all meetings.

7. When a suitable building has been found, the location should only be known to those that intend to occupy it. A public demonstration/march in support of the occupation will be held, arriving at the building - which ideally should be occupied and secured (and cleaned!) several days in advance. This is where the culmination of collective efforts within the public meeting/consultation process will hopefully occur. Supporters or well-wishers may not want to personally co-occupy the building, but will lend support and advice when the occupation is made public.

8. Inevitably moves will be made against the occupiers to have them evicted. This is where the support of others will come in useful. Anyone who chooses to be involved in an occupation must know and be assured that there will be a strong legal and financial campaign behind them if/when they come before the courts, and they should not be afraid. Laws in other European countries that guarantee some rights to squatters have not simply been given over, they have been fought for. To this end, at some point there will have to be a collective legal effort which seeks to change or clarify existing Irish property laws.

9. At present, there is conflicting legislation in Irish law surrounding the occupation of derelict land or buildings. Pre-1921 legislation guarantees some legal rights, although this has been somewhat extinguished by the Trespass Act of 2002. It is possible also that the occupiers could be prosecuted under the Prohibition of Forceful Entry act, which relates to burglaries. Nevertheless, there exists a space in land law to determine the intention in the mind of the occupier. This is where the notes from the meetings [6.] should be produced as evidence to show that the group was acting with various political and social intentions, rather than a simple trespass for criminal purposes. Other people such as the supporters/well-wishers who may not be directly involved in an occupation could be called as witnesses to explain the reasons behind the occupation.

10. This is where the issue of "renting vs. occupation" is answered best. (Aside from [5.]) Rent on a small premises within the city canals that would facilitate the general purposes of a centre could run up to €2,000 euro a month, or €24,000 euro a year (excluding costs involved in upkeep, electricity, etc). This money will have to be raised somehow. This money could instead be used to mount a serious legal campaign/defence of those involved in occupying a derelict building. A lawyer should be contacted long in advance of an occupation and informed of the action. With this, the people involved in occupation will feel more secure and confident, and less likely to up and leave when a confrontation occurs.

11. When the centre is up and running there must be a collective effort on the part of everyone involved to make the centre as active and useful as possible. The more events that happen in the centre, the more the word will spread among the public that the centre exists and is 'open for business'. The centre must act in opposition to lethargy and apathy.

12. Repeat, repeat, repeat, until desired effect becomes real.

save preference

Comments (11 of 11)

Some comments on the 'rent vs. squat' issue

Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:30

Rent money is boring. The grind of raising cash to fatten a landlords pocket becomes more miserable with every month. If money exists for rent then it should similarly exist for reinforcements needed to secure a disused potential building. Steel doors, petrol powered angle grinders, CCTV cameras and generators are infinitely more risky, exciting and glamarous than rent books, direct debits, deposits and leases. If a centre is to act as a space which actively encourages direct action then the centre -itself- must be a direct action.

get involved

by krossie

Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:50

Why not join people actually working on it at the moment? It may not be exactly what you want but hurling from the ditch can be sore on the arms.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gimme_space/

is it feasible?

by milizia rossa

Mon Jun 13, 2005 19:14

Agree with the spirit of almost all of this but wonder about the feasibility. Obviously this discussion can't be taken too far on Indymedia but:

- As I recollect it Dessie O'Malley made squatting into a felony carrying up to 5 years' imprisonment, some time back in the early 70s. This is AFAIK very different from the legal situation in most of western Europe, and raises the stakes massively in the case of political squats / occupations. Of course the law probably hasn't been used in this form in a decade or so, but if it's still being taken seriously it poses a serious problem.

- I don't believe a single political squat has been effectively defended in Dublin in the last ten years in the way that squats in continental Europe have been. This isn't a criticism - some of the best heads have been involved, but they have all judged it unwise to try and fight off either the cops or the private thugs who landlords have brought in to deal with them. People familiar with the continental squat scenes will know how much is involved in preventing an eviction.

None of which is to say that it can't be done - chances are high that we will get to this point sooner or later in Dublin. But it will take a longer history of continuous struggle, a lot of hard on-the-ground work (physical practicalities, building links with local communities struggling over housing issues, networking between different political / social groups) and almost certainly a lot of court cases etc. before it can be done successfully.

This is a good project and a well-thought-out proposal, but it also runs the risk of making things seem easier than they are. Perhaps someone with a long memory could fill us in on the political squats of the 70s?

my few cents

by Dara

Tue Jun 14, 2005 01:26

Hey, many thanks for opening up a dialogue on space and the way in which it is related to subversion. Here's my contribution, a piece i did several months ago. I feel the reclamation of space is a fundamental part of the movement and necessary for social liberation.
Hope more people will have something else to say on this issue.

Subversive Space

Let me start by stating the obvious:
- An action requires a location
- The character of a location determines the character of the actions that can be carried out there.
Obviously, the relationship between actions and locations is reciprocal. Successive actions build up the character of a location and this character determines, to a great extent, the actions that will be carried out. A location is largely defined by its utility to the person, through the various apparatuses that are situated at the location.

In our current existence, the overwhelming majority of locations are characterised by their particular relationship to the market, to the economic functions that they serve.

It may be argued that even households cannot be excluded from this generalisation, due to several factors. We might suggest that the family unit is the most basic training for participation in economic life. I will not over-examine this point, in favour of the following. All legitimate households exist as commodities. That is, a house has been purchased, is rented, leased, or some other financial agreement. The legitimate occupation of an abode is largely dependant upon the occupant’s direct or indirect participation in a capitalist system.

If a house is owned, it has been purchased, or inherited. Either way, it is an owned product of labour. The possession of the right to use this household is determined by labour. If one rents, or has a mortgage, the possession of this right demands one’s present and future labour. That is, one’s continual reproduction of capitalist activity within everyday life.

By defining all locations by their place within an economic system, we define the vast majority of actions as existing within this economic, namely, capitalist system.

We can resist this in one of two ways, both with the express aim of creating an alternate way of life; the use of spaces in a way that is antithetical to the actions that are intended to be carried out therein. Examples of these are critical mass, reclaim the streets and graffiti. These have a dual purpose; liberating those involved and the indirect liberation of others. Both critical mass and reclaim the streets disrupt the economic function of the streets, that of facilitating the movement of resources and thus, wealth-creation.

Graffiti, primarily, exists to be seen. First of all, in the case of billboard liberation (and that of all advertisements), it disrupts the stable message that the advertisement contained, pointing to a dissenting voice that is otherwise ignored. Also, graffiti allows for the viewer to experience a location in a way that is not serving the location’s intended function. It allows the viewer to experience an alternate (and usually subversive) understanding of the location. This is often characterised by humour and a direct engagement with the environment by the image (Banksy’ rats etc.).

The other way is to create a space that is not a commodity, and whose occupation does not necessitate the participation within the economic system. This is a space that can truly be said to be the basis of an alternate way of life. The acquiring of a free space by squatting is itself, a subversive action. Therefore, from the outset, the free space has been defined by subversion. It is therefore the ideal location for subversive actions.

The space allows for people to exist to a certain extent, (though we wouldn’t suggest totally) outside of the pervasive economic system. It is thus a space that can exist for individuals without demanding their reproduction of the capitalist activity to allow their occupation.

A subversive space in this way allows for the concentration of subversive thought. In the examples of reclaim the streets, critical mass and graffiti, the actions, however effective, are characterised by their brevity. The first two last for a matter of hours, mainly for the individuals involved while graffiti allows for a continual series of individually brief moments of subversive experience, until the graffiti itself is removed. However, a free space is characterised by its continuing occupation.

The successive subversive experiences that are allowed to exist within a free space means that an alternate, subversive identity can be created that is given a geographical base. We might put up a sign reminiscent of those ‘Nuclear-Free Zone’s and declare a free space, precisely that, a space that does not serve an economic function, let us declare a Capitalism-Free Zone!!

The massive majority of locations within an urban environment serve an economic function, that is, their function is concerned with commerce of some description. A free space allows for us to create an alternative to this, to provide a solid anchor from which subversion can flicker outwards, and create a radical vitality amidst the city.

It can be a continuing source of radicalism, where people and ideas meet and evolve, where the tendency to subversion can be fostered, allowing for the development of a network of radical spaces. The creation of subversive space within the city allows for the continued transformation of people by the radical actions and inter-actions that are integral to these locations and the perceptual transformation of the individuals involved and thus the city at large.

A word of caution ...

by Concerned

Tue Jun 14, 2005 09:41

Before ye get carried away completely, don't forget that the ERU are prowling around these days and targeting political dissidents in a rather heavy-handed manner.

No guarantee that they'll spare the anarchists ...

inside and outside spaces working together

by dunk

Tue Jun 14, 2005 14:52

physical social space connected with outside social space(s); gardens

join us saturday week for the open work play day of leisure in the dolphins barn community garden, thats sat 25th june

be amazed and inspired, and if theres not one near you, well you know what to do.....

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69689&condense_comments=false#comment110825

Disco Disco: Those kids have no respect for private property!

by redjade

Tue Jun 14, 2005 14:58

Kids?

sorry I meant Property Owners.

This is the front door of the famed Disco Disco building taken a weeks ago - Obviously the owners care a great deal for their property and the well being of the neighborhood.

Disco Disco Now

Strategy?

by David

Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:23

Clause Seven states: "When a suitable building has been found, the location should only be known to those that intend to occupy it. ".

Clause Eleven states: "When the centre is up and running there must be a collective effort on the part of everyone involved to make the centre as active and useful as possible. The more events that happen in the centre, the more the word will spread among the public that the centre exists and is 'open for business'."

Some practical indication of how you plan to get from seven to eleven would certainly be useful. Once you're in, how are you going to technically run it? What objective will the building have? How will it be run on a day-to-day basis, and what practical objectives (other than idealism) will it have?

I think it's a good idea, but one that lacks clariy.

Sandy Fitzgerald's ould art gallery worth a shot

by eeeekkk's evil twin - Justifed Ancients

Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:20

Should never have been closed in the first place. The old City Arts Centre- three doors in and out to an old hand. Down by Matt Talbot Bridge- make poverty history, Bono, indeed. Him and Ruairi Quinn were on the board that oversaw the CAC's closure!

The birth of Dublin Samba, many's a young Indyhead and Commie on the parole, Rehearsal rooms, theatre, galleries, even remember seeing radical indy radio station b92 from Belgrade set up their radio station link back in the days of the Milosovic dictatorship. Wnt on to overthrow him with Otpor...

The moral high ground belongs to whoever takes this building back- lots of the Pearse Street Community Employment workers lost their jobs when it was closed.

nearly was a strike against its closure, until some deals were made, if I remember.

City Arts Centre
22 Moss Street,
D2

city arts centre gone, henry place theatre gone, where else......

Thu Jun 16, 2005 14:36

i was just coming down by the old theatre space off moore st today, and guess what its closed and windows blocked up for last year..........

as far as i know of its history it was a main space in dublin years ago, jim sheridan and co were behind it, film and theatre makers from sheriff st, its where u2 and virgin prunes used to get little gigs, i had been in there myself at few theatre gigs

cant find much about it
http://www.dublinks.com/index.cfm/loc/14/pt/0/spid/7C685AE0-1C0B-4BC7-82E949F6C0798B0D.htm

maybe more arty or cultured of you will know its history?

wonder how many other cultural spaces like this have gone

for a while project, now project arts centre temple bar, used the space :
"In 1997, Project had relocated its performance space to project @ the mint. This temporary venue was located above a snooker club and fortune-teller in Henry Place, Dublin 1. The first show in project @ the mint was Hit and Run by CoisCéim Dance Theatre in January 1997. New companies like Bedrock and Loose Canon developed their craft and established their audience base. Dance, in particular, found a new home and work by Daghdha Dance and Paul Johnson of Mandance was showcased in this space. The visual arts programme at Project continued Off Site at various locations and across different media.
http://www.project.ie/about/

another cultural space - DEAD
THEatre SPACE @ HENRY PLACE
6 Henry Place
Off Henry Street
Dublin 1

the mints owner

by project worker

Thu Jun 16, 2005 14:48

is the general's brother, careful about occupying that one! he's pretty hard!

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

Autonomous Anonymous - 12-step plan for setting up a social centre in Dublin

Comments (11 of 11)