A House Is a Home (with the help of bolt cutters): on occupation and its potentialities

Occupy-related protests have steadily increased in num­ber and mil­i­tancy, and so has the result­ing police repres­sion. This has only made it more urgent to to iden­tify and under­stand recent impor­tant steps in the trans­for­ma­tion of the move­ment. These steps were most vis­i­ble in the gen­eral strike in Oak­land, and the later occu­pa­tion of the Traveller’s Aid build­ing, and they have begun to expand through­out the coun­try.

On Novem­ber 2 we saw the first gen­eral strike since the major restruc­tur­ing of cap­i­tal­ism in the 1970s, an expan­sion into new and exhil­a­rat­ing ter­ri­to­ries. The retak­ing of Oscar Grant Plaza and clos­ing down of banks was fol­lowed by a large anti-cap­i­tal­ist march and the block­age of Oakland’s port, the fifth largest port in the nation, by tens of thou­sands of pro­test­ers. Finally, in a widely mis­un­der­stood moment, a smaller group of pro­test­ers went to sup­port the occu­piers of a build­ing a few blocks from Oscar Grant Plaza, the for­mer Trav­el­ers Aid Cen­ter.

While the New York Times char­ac­ter­ized the event as an unpop­u­lar dis­rup­tion of an oth­er­wise orderly day by a “bel­liger­ent fringe group,” this was actu­ally a peace­ful attempt to extend the occupy move­ment into a much-needed inte­rior space that was presently unused and only became vio­lent because of police aggres­sion. Con­trary to the New York Times, we thought this last stage of the evening was an evo­lu­tion of the Occupy move­ment – entirely dif­fer­ent in char­ac­ter from the prop­erty destruc­tion that occurred ear­lier in the day, which the Times con­flated with the night’s activ­i­ties.

So far, finan­cial insti­tu­tions have been the tar­get of the move­ment; but these abstract manip­u­la­tions of ethe­real value are sys­tem­atic with the con­crete suf­fer­ing caused by the mas­sive num­bers of fore­clo­sures and destruc­tion of social services.The vora­cious hol­low­ing out of the world’s energies and resources has been man­aged and masked by bub­bles and other forms of dis­plac­ing cri­sis. Cap­i­tal accu­mu­la­tion is fueled by the enclo­sure or erad­i­ca­tion of the “com­mons,” through preda­tory finan­cial­iza­tion and spec­u­la­tion, wide­spread debt peon­age, pri­va­ti­za­tion, aus­ter­ity, and struc­tural adjust­ment pro­grams, which global finan­cial insti­tu­tions use to con­trol pop­u­la­tions while man­ag­ing crises. The occu­pa­tion of a build­ing vacated by a defunded social ser­vice was a pos­si­ble first step towards reclaim­ing the com­mons.

Gold Rush
Cri­sis has engulfed the entire coun­try, but it is no acci­dent that the most vis­i­ble polit­i­cal response has come in Cal­i­for­nia. As Richard Walker has argued, in the last three years Cal­i­for­nia has deeply reg­is­tered cri­sis and aus­ter­ity, serv­ing as an apoc­a­lyp­tic vision of what is to come for the coun­try at large. While California’s share of US total house­hold income and GDP over the last decade have held steady at around 13%, Cal­i­for­nia now has the sec­ond high­est unem­ploy­ment rate in the coun­try. While invest­ment in ven­ture cap­i­tal is again on the rise – with Cal­i­for­nia con­trol­ling more than 50% of this most “dynamic” form of cap­i­tal – state and fed­eral invest­ment in edu­ca­tion and social ser­vices for the increas­ingly impov­er­ished are near­ing record lows.

The mort­gage lend­ing bub­ble that con­tributed so greatly to the crash was con­cen­trated in Cal­i­for­nia, which was respon­si­ble for six mil­lion orig­i­nal mort­gages, ten mil­lion refi­nance loans, and 56% of the sub­primes issued between 2005 and 2007. Banks in Cal­i­for­nia have ramped up their fore­clo­sures and evic­tions within the past few months, as they scram­ble to get bad loans off their bal­ance sheets. Walker points out that Cal­i­for­nia was already “the heart­land of the largest stock bub­ble in his­tory, as invest­ment in the mar­vels of Sil­i­con Val­ley pushed the NASDAQ to uncharted heights.” This plunged Cal­i­for­nia and then the nation into reces­sion – but this reces­sion was “over­come” with the hous­ing bub­ble, whose burst­ing has bank­rupted hun­dreds of thou­sands. Hous­ing was a focal point of California’s bub­ble-and-bust econ­omy, and in the wake of the busted bub­ble of real estate sales and hous­ing con­struc­tion Cal­i­for­nia was left with more bad loans and fore­clo­sures than any other state in the union.

California’s aus­ter­ity process can be traced to the pas­sage of Propo­si­tion 13, which capped local prop­erty taxes and required a two-thirds major­ity in the state leg­is­la­ture for any future tax increases. This began as pop­ulist out­rage against ris­ing hous­ing costs, but ended up serv­ing as a linch­pin for the neolib­eral pro­gram of drain­ing state resources. A low point in this down­ward trend was the bank­rupt­ing of the entire city of Vallejo, now sub­ject to extreme aus­ter­ity mea­sures. Bereft of tax money or invest­ment, Cal­i­for­nia now keeps itself afloat with debt and past resources. Sleight-of-hand mea­sures such as state bonds have main­tained the illu­sion of a work­ing pub­lic infra­struc­ture, with the result that Cal­i­for­nia has the worst bond rat­ing in the coun­try.

Mir­ror­ing the decline of California’s econ­omy is the rise of inland and exur­ban ghost towns, where the wind whistles through fore­closed, empty houses. It will not be sur­pris­ing if Oak­land, fol­low­ing the wave of uni­ver­sity occu­pa­tions of 2009, her­alds the begin­ning of a nation­wide move­ment to reclaim and reuse vacated spaces – a process that has already been pro­posed and rat­i­fied by the Occupy Oak­land Gen­eral Assem­bly.

Keep it for Your­self
The occu­pa­tion tac­tic has a long his­tory. One of its most inspir­ing moments came with Lotta Con­tinua’s efforts to orga­nize rent strikes and other hous­ing and occu­pa­tion move­ments in Milan, Via Tibaldi, Rome, San Basillo, Tarunto, Palermo, and Naples in the early 1970s. Lotta Con­tinua, one of the most mil­i­tant extra­parlia­men­tary groups in Italy, sought to push beyond the lim­its of the trade-union model of strug­gle by explic­itly crit­i­ciz­ing the assump­tion that the work­ing class could only meet its needs by increas­ing the pur­chas­ing power of its par­tic­u­lar seg­ments. For these mil­i­tants, strug­gle in the com­mu­nity, and self-orga­ni­za­tion through rent strikes and squat­ting, were tac­tics through which the work­ing class could real­ize its needs while devel­op­ing col­lec­tive ways of orga­niz­ing aspects of daily life, such as child care, cook­ing coop­er­a­tives, and health col­lec­tives. They saw the strug­gle around hous­ing as a pre­con­di­tion of the exten­sion of the fight into other areas, such as trans­porta­tion, health, and com­mod­ity prices more gen­er­ally.

The occu­pa­tions, then, rep­re­sented a nec­es­sary recal­i­bra­tion of work­ing-class strug­gle. In Italy, as in much of the west­ern world, the post-war expan­sion of the global econ­omy caught par­ties and unions in the web of pro­duc­tiv­ity and effi­ciency; the social­ist bureau­cra­cies sought to tie work­ing-class pol­i­tics to the national econ­omy. While the ear­lier rev­o­lu­tion­ary period in Europe saw work­place strug­gles as inte­grally linked with orga­niz­ing the quo­tid­ian world out­side the fac­tory, no such com­mon assump­tion sur­vived mass work­ing-class pol­i­tics after the War. Every­day life was sev­ered from pol­i­tics and the hori­zon of polit­i­cal activ­ity was lim­ited to rep­re­sen­ta­tional pol­i­tics.

The the­o­ret­i­cal and prac­ti­cal inno­va­tions of the post-war left sig­naled renewed efforts to revive this sup­pressed link. For the auton­o­mist squat­ters, social life and con­sump­tion was an impor­tant arena of rev­o­lu­tion­ary strug­gle. What the Ital­ians called “self-reduc­tion,” the refusal to accept increased prices for daily neces­si­ties, was led by the house­wives who per­formed the bulk of what has been called “fem­i­nized labor”: the unpaid labor that cap­i­tal­ism needs in order to main­tain a waged work force. Work­ing-class women in the move­ment described the imme­di­ate effects on every­day life that resulted from with­hold­ing rent money:

In the two years and five months that I’ve been on strike, I’ve saved a lot of money. I feel health­ier. I’ve had more money to give to the chil­dren, to the ones who really need it. I’ve had some money to give to a few old-age pen­sion­ers. I’m not say­ing all this to give you big ideas about myself. But just think for a min­ute. Rather than give your money to the bosses, keep it for your­self. Give it to the chil­dren. Give it to the work­ers who are strug­gling in the fac­to­ries and who are exploited, year in and year out.

For these women, rent refusal was not an abstract form of pol­i­tics – it pro­vided imme­di­ate improve­ment of health and well-being, espe­cially for the most vul­ner­a­ble mem­bers of the com­mu­nity. Cru­cially, the deci­sion to occupy was a mass deci­sion; the gen­eral meet­ing acted as the lead­er­ship whereby con­trol and use of build­ings was artic­u­lated and enacted.

In an era when labor has become increas­ingly pre­car­i­ous and mar­gin­al­ized, most peo­ple inhabit this “fem­i­nized” labor posi­tion, forced to work with­out access to the basic ser­vices that facil­i­tate daily life. Strug­gle at the level of the every­day is a force­ful move towards reap­pro­pri­at­ing the hid­den wealth amassed by cap­i­tal, as it sheds the ser­vices it once promised. Pre­dictably, self-reduc­tion, squat­ting, and other mil­i­tant actions were met with media and polit­i­cal out­cry, because they affirmed the power of the work­ing classes to deter­mine the shape of their own lives.

Demand Noth­ing, Occupy Every­thing
Prac­tices of self-man­age­ment and dual power arose in times marked by peri­odic cri­sis, but now that we are enter­ing an era marked by the great­est strat­i­fi­ca­tion of wealth since the 1920s, and the biggest global depres­sion since the 1930s, the oppor­tu­ni­ties to mobi­lize have inten­si­fied. It’s use­ful to mark the dis­tance not only from recent “peri­odic crises,” but also the crises of indus­trial cap­i­tal­ism that marked the early 20th cen­tury. As Andrew Wood and James Baer show in their his­tory of rent strikes in the Amer­i­cas, hous­ing has long been a cen­tral con­cern for the work­ing class. But the pre­con­di­tion for the move­ments of this period was a state nom­i­nally capa­ble of inter­ven­ing into social affairs. “In con­trast to pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions,” Wood and Baer write, “demands for reduced rents and improved hous­ing con­di­tions were based on the rel­a­tively new belief in the state as arbiter of citizen’s rights and indi­vid­ual wel­fare.” The wel­fare state was able to keep peo­ple work­ing by nego­ti­at­ing with social move­ments – a “new polit­i­cal engage­ment,” which was “char­ac­ter­ized by a dynamic nego­ti­a­tion involv­ing ten­ants, com­mu­nity asso­ci­a­tions, polit­i­cal groups, prop­erty own­ers, the press, and key gov­ern­ment agents.”

Indus­trial expan­sion was char­ac­ter­ized by over­crowd­ing and the absence of space for the teem­ing work­ing classes, along with activist states will­ing to inter­vene in social processes to ensure the con­tin­ued accu­mu­la­tion of cap­i­tal. Today, we are pre­sented with an inverse sit­u­a­tion: neolib­eral states have so far been unable to deliver any­thing other than aus­ter­ity cuts. The result­ing vast infra­struc­ture of dis­carded and vacant struc­tures seems to demand new forms of coop­er­a­tion. Strikes and rent strikes once demon­strated the vital­ity of a rev­o­lu­tion­ary work­ing-class move­ment – today strikes, rent strikes, and occu­pa­tions point beyond the decay of cap­i­tal to the nascent strength of a renewed work­ing-class move­ment.

There are two entrenched fal­lac­ies that must be over­come as the move­ment con­tin­ues to grow in size and strength. First, we must rec­og­nize that the rein­state­ment of the wel­fare state can­not solve the struc­tural prob­lems of con­tem­po­rary cap­i­tal­ism. The polit­i­cal and cap­i­tal­ist class that laid the intel­lec­tual ground­work for the New Deal and Great Soci­ety has been trans­fig­ured by increas­ingly sin­is­ter neolib­eral strate­gies, and the eco­nomic con­di­tions of an expand­ing global econ­omy anchored by US eco­nomic might, which girded the expan­sion of the mid­dle class and wel­fare state, are no longer with us.

Sec­ond, we should reject the pro­foundly anti-utopian reformism of left-lib­er­als, and their lack of vision­ary hopes or demands – a neces­sity even Rolling Stone Mag­a­zine has rec­og­nized. Lib­er­als accuse occu­piers of lack­ing speci­fic demands. We must reply that these accusers them­selves have no demands, and in the cur­rent con­text the vague demands they do have will only har­ness or halt the rad­i­cal poten­tial­i­ties of this move­ment. Rather than con­cen­trate on super­fi­cial polit­i­cal demands for social ser­vices, we need to address a civil soci­ety ren­dered apo­lit­i­cal by post-WWII expan­sion, a labor mar­ket made qui­es­cent through mid-cen­tury com­pro­mise, and the repeated and con­cen­trated attacks on our liveli­hoods under the cap­i­tal­ist strat­egy of neolib­er­al­ism.

This occu­pa­tion move­ment is an oppor­tu­nity to move beyond a pol­i­tics of protest and resis­tance. Occupy Every­where, in dis­tinc­tion from ear­lier move­ments that used the tac­tic of occu­pa­tions, is mov­ing to recre­ate con­di­tions of social life while simul­ta­ne­ously point­ing to the need for deeper struc­tural change. Though occu­pa­tions have been a tac­tic of stu­dent and worker move­ments through­out the last thirty years, the tenor of the present moment has changed. Pre­vi­ous move­ments, such as the 1999 UC-Berke­ley occu­pa­tion of Bar­row Hall in defense of the Eth­nic Stud­ies Depart­ment, used occu­pa­tions as a means to force unde­mo­c­ra­tic admin­is­tra­tions to accede to demands. But the cur­rent occu­pa­tion move­ment refuses to rec­og­nize these admin­is­tra­tions at all.  In the past, admin­is­tra­tions have used demands to recu­per­ate the goals of the move­ment.  For exam­ple, Eth­nic Stud­ies depart­ments in the UC and other uni­ver­si­ties have either adopted a corporate/public rela­tions per­sona or been suf­fo­cated by the with­drawal of resources and fac­ulty.   It is these forms of manip­u­la­tion that have forced a recon­sid­er­a­tion of the rela­tion­ship between move­ments and demands in the first place.

As fee hikes at the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia accel­er­ated dur­ing the clos­ing years of the last decade, stu­dent activists sur­veyed the polit­i­cal field and reached the con­clu­sion that the wrong lessons had been learned from the anti-Iraq war move­ment and the var­i­ous Eth­nic Stud­ies move­ments that uti­lized occu­pa­tions. It was not the case that protest and polit­i­cal action were inef­fec­tive, but that they were mired in strat­egy of rep­re­sen­ta­tion and pub­lic wel­fare that is past its time. Denun­ci­a­tions of and protests against the unde­mo­c­ra­tic activ­ity of the Regents had not man­aged to stall or over­come the pri­va­ti­za­tion and cor­po­ra­ti­za­tion of the UC, or pre­vent the Regents from using it as a per­sonal pig­gy­bank. Protest and occu­pa­tions at uni­ver­si­ties and col­leges since the 1970s had failed to hold admin­is­tra­tive bureau­cracy account­able or bring trans­for­ma­tive change to the often immis­er­at­ing expe­ri­ence of US higher edu­ca­tion.

We were part of the group of aca­d­e­mic and stu­dent activists who occu­pied build­ings in the fall of 2009, and many of us remem­bered the mil­lions who turned out nearly a decade before to try to stop the attack on Iraq. Mere num­bers had failed to force demo­c­ra­t­i­cally elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives to com­ply with the people’s demands. Work­ing with the rudi­ments of Ital­ian the­ory, visions of Greek agi­ta­tion and the fresh chal­lenge of The Com­ing Insur­rec­tion, our move­ment was deter­mined to take over edu­ca­tional infra­struc­ture, demand noth­ing, and man­i­fest a last-ditch effort to politi­cize civil soci­ety.

That this move­ment began in the uni­ver­si­ties is no coin­ci­dence. More than 80 years ago, Edward Bernays, the father of pub­lic rela­tions, elab­o­rated a vision of cap­i­tal­ist media and uni­ver­si­ties enlisted to “train the emo­tions” and intel­lects of the work­ing classes. For early 20th cen­tury cap­i­tal­ism to max­i­mize its effi­ciency and pro­duc­tiv­ity, the igno­rant and stub­born masses would have to be “enlight­ened”; to this end, monopoly cap­i­tal­ism mar­shaled osten­si­bly dis­in­ter­ested expert wit­nesses in order to over­come oppo­si­tion to a lib­eral state. Cou­pling admin­is­tra­tion by experts with a ped­a­gogy that sep­a­rated thought from action, the lib­eral era saw the man­u­fac­ture of con­sent as the nec­es­sary sup­ple­ment of the bru­tal use of force.

Against this vision of a pas­sive audi­ence, Marx­ists and rad­i­cals have long held to a the­ory of edu­ca­tion through strug­gle – empha­siz­ing the need to sup­ple­ment study with active learn­ing in the picket line, the strike or through direct action. It is no sur­prise that rad­i­cal edu­ca­tors and stu­dents who seek to wrest the class­room from the ped­a­gogy of pub­lic rela­tions have been on the front lines, work­ing through a new the­ory of rad­i­cal action. Work­ing-class edu­ca­tion through action is the only anti­dote to rul­ing-class pub­lic rela­tions.

Over­com­ing the sup­pli­cat­ing atti­tude of the left since the New Deal means over­com­ing the left’s strange rela­tion­ship to the state. Increas­ingly, the US state is unable to oper­ate accord­ing to wel­fare-based strate­gies; mak­ing demands would rep­re­sent noth­ing other than legit­i­ma­tion of an ille­git­i­mate power. This is the the­ory under­ly­ing today’s slo­gan: “Demand noth­ing, occupy every­thing!” The form of the gen­eral assem­blies and of autonomous move­ments pro­vides the begin­ning of an answer to all pos­si­ble demands.

Long Live the Oak­land Com­mune
The night of Novem­ber 2 we had the priv­i­lege of wan­der­ing around the briefly occu­pied Trav­el­ers Aid build­ing while a dance party took place out­side. A flyer described the building’s intended use, as an imme­di­ate shel­ter from the cold for the Occupy Oak­land move­ment and as a site of future forms of mutual aid. From the front, the build­ing looked to be of mod­est size, but this hid an enor­mous inte­rior space. There were at least 10 rooms in the two-story build­ing, with a spa­cious base­ment. We’ve been around the Santa Cruz DIY com­mu­nity for many years, and have seen ded­i­cated rad­i­cals build projects like Food Not Bombs, infos­hops, bike churches, and con­certs with only pen­nies and gleaned resources, so we could eas­ily imag­ine a space of this size trans­form­ing the lives of hun­dreds of peo­ple through mean­ing­ful col­lec­tive projects with and for the des­ti­tute, hun­gry, and des­per­ate. With work approach­ing the next day, we left for home after a cou­ple of hours, in a san­guine mood.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSTLxcV7KMY]

Police had been con­spic­u­ously absent, so we assumed that we’d have the oppor­tu­nity for future vis­its and mate­rial con­tri­bu­tions. News of police con­verg­ing on the site was unset­tling. We had spotty phone recep­tion and received parat­ac­tic updates about the advance of the police, who unleashed tear gas and rub­ber bul­lets on our friends as we drove over High­way 17. While recep­tion was fuzzy, it was clear that we would not be able to visit a thriv­ing social cen­ter in the for­mer Trav­el­ers Aid Build­ing.

Despite our dis­ap­point­ment, we’re grate­ful we were able to take part in the col­lec­tive joy that night. Given that the Oak­land Gen­eral Assem­bly has rat­i­fied its ini­tial vote to occupy build­ings – and that this call has been heeded in numer­ous other cities – we have no doubt that future endeav­ors will be made to seize the neglected spaces that should be ours. This has, as Busi­ness Insider notes, become an inevitabil­ity – as the weather gets colder, the mil­lions of unin­hab­ited build­ings cry out for use. Recently a nation­wide coali­tion called Occupy Homes has begun to reoc­cupy fore­closed homes and pro­tect those about to be evicted; Occupy Atlanta has pro­tected a police officer’s home from fore­clo­sure, giv­ing the fam­ily time to fight the bank; and Occupy Wall Street has secured low-income ten­ants heat from their slum­lord. We’re not set­tled on a sin­gle the­ory of social trans­for­ma­tion, but with news of these suc­cesses pour­ing in, it’s clear that this is an impor­tant step in that trans­for­ma­tion.

As impor­tant as these par­tic­u­lar suc­cesses are, the the­o­ret­i­cal space opened by the actions might eclipse these first attempts in impor­tance. Dis­cus­sions and gen­eral assem­blies are emerg­ing in which peo­ple of vary­ing polit­i­cal and social back­grounds have begun to debate how these spaces may be seized and held. Specif­i­cally, ques­tions will arise about the rela­tion of some of the more adver­sar­ial mem­bers of the move­ment – whose actions and the­o­ries, it must be noted, opened the space in which the occu­pa­tion of pub­lic spaces became pos­si­ble – to the gen­eral assem­bly; the ped­a­gog­i­cal activ­ity of marches and the assem­blies; and the meth­ods and modes by which future build­ings will be claimed. A new era of self-man­age­ment and mutual aid, made pos­si­ble through the seizure of spaces aban­doned by cap­i­tal, has become a viable tac­tic. We look for­ward to an exper­i­men­tal period in which col­lec­tive inge­nu­ity will inhabit and expand capital’s gaps and fis­sures.

Authors of the article

has written for Reclamations Journal, and is a member of University Research Group Experiment (URGE). He is also a graduate student at UC Santa Cruz.

is a lecturer at San Francisco State. She has written for Lana Turner Journal and Counterpunch

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.

Please comment with your real name using good manners.

Leave a Reply