cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/40877
Email is inherently insecure. If you want or need secure communications, that’s what software like Briar, Matrix, or Signal (yes despite some drama).
Secure emails can always be done manually with PGP and will be a lot hardier than trusting an organization that gives away subscriber payments to Western-backed coup attempts and color revolutions.
Where is that the case? Here in the Netherlands there is an actual shortage of living accommodation. The shortage is even more severe in places like Hong Kong (look up cage and coffin homes, please). Abolishing police won’t do jack sh*t to fix that issue, but building more homes where they are most severely needed will. Yes, I get that police officers are often thinking they are better than other people (esp. in nations like the USA or Nigeria) but that does not mean that your comment was keeping it real.
That is definitely the case in France (3116000, source INSEE) and USA (17019726, source Census Bureau 2018) : empty dwellings outnumber homeless people >5 to 1). I don’t know about stats for UK but i believe the situation is the same. In the Netherlands i don’t know about officially-recognized dwellings, but there were some official studies of the squat ban that found that vacant office space significantly increased, unsurprisingly. Of course these studies do not account for office/industrial space, rarely-used secondary housing or for anti-squat practices (letting someone live here so they guard the place for free, but have no right to do what they want), so the actual number is much much higher.
I believe exactly the opposite. In France and USA we have been giving billions of euros to decades to the construction mafia to build more housing, yet prices keep rising as fast as the number of homeless people. I mean considering that the laws of supply and demand apply to some extent, it makes sense: if millions of landowners voluntarily withdraw their property from the market, you create a speculative bubble where prices cannot go down despite new constructions. If you add to this the fact that any social policies our respective governments had after WWII are actively being dismantled, and social housing in France is now managed like a mafia (where in many places you either pay up under the desk, or wait ~5y on a list) and prioritizing luxury “social” housing in new construction for middle classes, we’re in deep shit. Who profits from “build more”? Big companies and corrupt officials, as always. It will just damage the environment and keep making more people homeless, if those constructions are not tied to an actual social policy.
However, what prevents us from housing people right now? The fucking cops. Because by law in France since 1945, the city and/or the préfet (regional police overlord) can requisition unused dwellings to apply the constitutional right to housing. This was very common right after WWII when many owners went missing and couldn’t be asked for permission: it’s mostly no longer applied today. So that’s how the squatting scene was born: why wait for permission when we the people can organize and take what we need from those who stole it from us?! So when you crack a squat, you have two enemies who want to evict you: the owners and the cops. Both may or may not (depending on local context and circumstances) attack you, beat you up, evict you. The police additionally may detain you under bullshit reasons [0] and get you sent to prison for trying to find a home, applying by yourself the spirit of the law they, as agents of the bourgeois Nation-State, are refusing to apply because it does not suit their interests.
It’s important to note that as always, the cops are an armed militia for the powerful, not a neutral and just armed band applying the law. For example, the law in France explicitly says if there is no proof of breaking in, and you reside there for >48h, then it’s your primary housing and you should benefit all protections related to this such as the right to a trial before being evicted. However, cops will almost systematically ignore proof that you’ve been residing there for a while (sometimes for months) and just kick you out pretending they saw you just break in. Some times, they will themselves break the windows, electricity/pipes so that they make it unlikely to be squatted again, and can tell the landlord it’s a shame that such punks are allowed to breathe at all.
How would it work without police? If we didn’t have a police, we could just find justice without obstacles. Without an armed militia of psychopaths to enforce injustice, private property would be a pipe dream. We would only have to defend ourselves against owners, and we’re up to that. The issue we face today is if we defend ourselves against an owner attacking us, they will claim we attacked them and we will be condemned by the class justice to prison sentences or fines, despite being the victims (just like victims of police abuse are condemned for “violence” and “insults” against the cops despite being the only ones suffering physical injuries). The police having a monopoly on “legitimate” violence is the reason why the elites and their police get to decide the fate of everyone without suffering any kind of consequences.
As a conclusion, i think it’s important to note that squatting is widespread and part of human history. It’s probably as old as “oooh, i just found a nice abandoned cavern with a fire pit”) and these issues for land reclamation by the people are worldwide (and not, as some misinformed marxist-leninists imply, a privileged european punk fun park). From South African squatted slums evicted by cops and for-profit militias, to indigenous peoples of Mexico/Columbia reclaiming the land that was stolen from them, it’s an issue that should matter to all. Housing belongs to those who inhabit it; the land belongs to whoever works it. Such is an old anarchist principle by which we should, in my humble opinion, strive to live a better live.
[0] “Cambriolage” or “violation de domicile” are often invoked, although they should in theory only apply to non-vacant housing being squatted or robbed.
Let me start my reply with a small apology. The way I phrased my question (“where is that the case?”) I might have come across as inconsiderate. I may also have initially misread what you wrote, taking the comment on empty homes a tad too literal. That is, if we count for e.g. unused office space than you are certainly on point.
First of all, when I wrote “build more” I meant to include initiatives such as transforming office space into residential buildings. Sorry if this was not sufficiently implied in my comment. Secondly, I can agree to the notion that the construction mafia needs to be dealt with somehow (i.e. curbing corruption etc.). On your supply and demand remark: many nations in Europe that have housing issues have countrysides that are massively aging and depopulating. Cities in same countries often are growing, but formerly used homes from the smaller places aren’t exactly going to transplant themselves into areas where they would be more needed. So, unless jobs etc. are at least partly going back to the smaller towns (to curb urbanization and “spread the load” more evenly across the country), retrofitting existing (office/industrial/retail) buildings and constructing new ones will be the only workable solution. Obviously in conjunction with good social policies. BTW, the building of “social” housing for (lower) middle classes is sometimes done because actual social housing is something they are obviously to rich for. Yet they cannot afford private (either bought or rented) housing and obviously the demand would drive those prices up. So while an imperfect solution, I can see why some regions/cities have chosen to expand the “social” part of social housing (as long as they don’t replace actual social housing with it). Especially if at least some of the demand for housing in larger (>200.000) cities is coming from people with a middle income. Not everybody who has difficulties keeping a roof over their head is destitute.
Even when nobody (organised enough to do so) is going to stop thieves, rapists and murderers?
Sorry for asking an ignorant question, but do you mean “property” as in buildings or property in a more literal, broader sense?
I still believe that with good rewrites of the laws and good social policy, many of such issues can be mitigated. I mean, at least half the demonstrations/riots in Europe are organised because of the lack of the former. I think “we” have to start somewhere, but how to reduce police violence further I do not know.