Unlike most of the world, squatting in England is still legal under civil law, making it a matter to be resolved in a court of law between the landlord and the occupants, but to discuss the legalities of the act is not of interest here. My intention in this text is not to disregard the exploitation of such a legal loophole as a means of housing, but to try and bring to light the hypocrisy of seeing it as a politically radical venture. A person's basic need of housing free from the banal injustice of landlordship is indisputable. But when squatting is legal, to claim it as a form of direct action or defiance to capitalism is naïve, and in many respects damaging to the activity of what needs to be a radical movement.
It has been estimated that there are well over ten thousand squats in England, but it is the minority of 'political' squats that get the majority of the attention. Many squatters claiming to affiliate with radical politics see their choice of living as an act of rebellion, defying the social and economic assumption that an individual's space is nothing more than another commodity to be bought and sold. But such beliefs fail to take into account a number of things. All that is being done is occupying the surplus of capital and private property, the unwanted or currently disused products of the system, that, for the mean time at least are being neglected due to their failure to profit. If disused properties were of any serious concern to the owner then they would not be disused, so the occupation as a political act is merely symbolic due to nothing being challenged. 'Grasping at crumbs that fall from the banquet of the powerful when there is a world to be reconquered is a discourse of meagre self-preservation'i.
To further this, despite being 'protected' by civil law, such an act is still under the complete control of the judicial system, and nearly always submits to it when the eviction papers come through. How can political squatting be in defiance of something it is protected by – the law - and, when challenged, reaffirms its power by leaving on request? Even respect for the judicial system that will eventually evict an occupied property reaffirms the power of the state and its bureaucratic, legislative processes. So, depending on your definition of direct action, it in no way stands up to, challenges, or even better damages those profiting from another's need to a roof over their head.
Another aspect of legal squatting that often fails to be noticed, and in many respects is the most damaging consequence of its legality, is the apathy that it produces. This is more difficult to discuss however, as it is intertwined in other social issues that are current in England such as the welfare state and drug culture. To talk of everyone's objective right to freedom of space is all well and good, but to talk, as many squatters do, of being part of the oppressed class due to their attempts at autonomously providing housing for themselves and others is wrong. Yes, squatters often have to deal with aggressive landlords, the police (although they have no right to get involved unless a criminal offence is committed) and bailiffs, but the fact remains that the option of a home for free is possible. Eviction is easily followed by the occupation of another building, and squatters in many parts of England often get far longer than a tenant in the same country, let alone the majority of impoverished people in other parts of the world. When put into international context, English squatters have domestic security, and this often leads to a lack of realisation of the true state of things. 'The squatter first denounces direct action, content with the one that led to the conquering of the space. Placing faith in being able to live on a happy island, she renounces self-organization bit by bit.'ii
If one sees the legal occupation of buildings as an attack in itself, why should any further action be taken if it risks legal punishment? When oppression is not realised as a condition of life, with many still believing that here in the England we are privileged, actions are reduced to mere defence. Even if our only goal is for squatting to remain legal and for occupants to be treated more fairly by the authorities (although this is a completely reformist notion), then our tactics should still take the form of attack, as to pose a threat to the ruling order shows that we are serious in our commitment to everyone's freedom of space. But the goal of an anarchist is, broadly speaking, to destroy all forms of domination, so to talk of defensive action in order to not jeopardise the 'rights' we have in this 'privileged' society is to hide from the situation at hand, along with the multitude of dirty repercussions that come with it.
Every material aspect of life is attainable for free in England, if you know how to get it. Along with squatting, one can recycle perfectly edible food from dustbins, claim a diverse range of financial benefits from the state, some of which pay as much as some full time jobs and easily shoplift the majority of other daily commodities. Given this, it is not surprising that amongst the claimants to and advocates of radical political action, a truly directed hatred for authority and the social system that has evolved around it is rare, as they are utterly dependent on its surplus, but believe to be avoiding the social relations imposed upon us. However the state is everywhere, so true avoidance is impossible, but even if it was possible an anarchist of action must talk of attack. In this sense, the methods highlighted of avoiding the status quo – working to buy food and pay rent/mortgage – are useful, but only enable one to free up more time for truly subversive activity.
If we combine this material security with the culture that surrounds the 'scene', the apathy than emanates from it is no surprise. Drugs and alcohol, particularly ketamine, play a massive role in the political squatting movement. To discuss their impacts on an individual and their outlook on society is a massive question in itself, but if we accept that both enable one to detach from, or dumb down the oppressive, unjust conditions of everyday existence, then it is no surprise that no one is angry, as escape is easy and massively acceptable.
It is important to consider why the state has not yet revoked these patronizing 'civil' rights that are so cherished. Whilst many would love to delude themselves into thinking that it is down to the ruling class' fear of a national squatters' uprising, this is ridiculous, as who would instigate it in action? In reality it is more likely that, as mentioned previously, abandoned properties are of no interest to those in power, so the occupation of them by some claiming to autonomy relieves the state of the obligation to provide housing. 'In essence, [squats] become aided and supplementary places for the reproduction of conformity and normalization through the administration of services that the state lacks for the increasing numbers of marginalized people in the big cities who might become a problem for the public order.'iii Remember, actions are only legal if they do not pose a threat to the accepted power structures. The fact that squatting in England is still legal is not out of fear, but because it in no way challenges the status quo, and in fact provides important services that the state would otherwise have to do. If a homeless person takes it upon themselves to occupy an abandoned property, the state is relieved from fulfilling its promise of providing a home for them.
'Every space is a commodity to be consumed or capitalised upon...[F]or a space to be truly autonomous it must first be liberated. Liberated...doesn't just mean taking something out of the hands of capitalists (the mere re-appropriation of a building) but rather taking space and finding ways to use it as a weapon against state and capital themselves.'iv The potential for truly radical, offensive squatting is possible in England, and if one intends on doing this then the exploitation of their rights is worthwhile. But as we all know, exploitation is abuse, and to abuse is to disrespect ones rights. Every respectful attendance of a court hearing, negotiation with a landlord or a passively polite response to a police accusation confirms the power structures that many squatters would claim to defy, and each occurrence of such an act damages the need and potential for a radical movement; we must 'reconceptualise space and see the subversive qualities in the architecture and the space that surrounds us.'v
These damaging aspects become evident in meetings and discussions, be they be on an individual, domestic level or national gatherings. The subject of how an occupied property can be held for as long as possible, and how it can have its greatest impact or send its strongest message often results in suggestions of negotiation and amiable behaviour. 'In the battle to retake access to space, resources, decision-making etc, taking a space and making an agreement with the owners and police might be the pragmatic option, yet doesn’t constitute much hope or send a clear message of total resistance.'vi Rather than being a meeting of radical ideas, critiques and solidarity, designed to put squatting back on the offensive, they do nothing but reproduce the relations which individuals hold in the 'outside' world that many love to claim to contradict.
To talk of one having rights within the law is an utterly reformist conception. It is to ask the state to treat you with respect and dignity on a single issue, whilst you promise to trust their honesty in maintaining 'justice' within that sphere of the law. One cannot talk of self-organisation and still attempt to find solace within the oppressive sanctions imposed on our every move by the state. Such a tactic is similar to that currently being used by the EDO 'Decommissioners'vii who are fighting to justify their acts of sabotage on an arms factory within the legal framework. However, such an argument
'...implies that there is a society worth reasoning with, that democratic legitimacy itself will bring about social change and 'justice', that adhering to some laws whilst others are manipulated by the state will gain an eventual positive outcome. This is in compliance with state imposed hierarchies that exist within the capitalist framework and it is flawed and foolishly misguided. Any action that attempts to justify its means using laws which were created only to protect the state will never appease or rise to meet the brutal fist which relentlessly punches the excluded.'viii
Apart from the fact that it will never achieve anything, even within the single issue context, it is complete hypocrisy to try and use a law imposed on us to fight for a world where such oppressive dictates do not exist, and by doing so suggests that freedom is possible within the legislative process.
In this writing I am not attacking every person squatting in England, as to have a home is a basic human need, so to take it for free makes perfect sense. I simply want to bring to light the contradictions in the logic that lead many to believe legal squatting is radically effective in its attempts at fighting for freedom of space. I also want to reinforce that I do not believe squatted events such as the TAA (Temporary Autonomous Arts) and convergence spaces for demonstrations etc. are inherently pointless - although they do manifest many of the issues I have highlighted - but that their method of occupation does not say what it is commonly perceived to. Equally, claiming benefits or taking drugs are not intrinsically bad things, it is merely the pacifying impacts they can have on an individual that needs to be considered. We must develop a greater critique of ourselves and our activity, as doing so does not weaken us, but only makes us stronger.
Squatting and the need of shelter and warmth, as well as all the other requirements dictated by modern capitalism has, as with so many other topics, been turned into a single issue campaign with a general failure to realise the necessity of an all encompassing struggle for freedom. The commodification of space plays a massive role in economic control, but its interconnection with every other oppressive impact of the state must be truly realised. Given the current inactivity of the movement, the illusion of it being a radical act of defiance is one that needs to be shattered, as in fact it is nothing but an opiate. Let us be away with the tantrums of the left, and embrace the rage of the social revolt.