This is not squatters extending solidarity to the TUC, this is idiots occupying a building to be used by the TUC, whom instead of leaving as soon as realising there fucking ridiculous error, have the pomposity to offer to 'facilitate' the TUC.

'Give up activism', 'dickheads' and get the fuck out.

what we DO need is more divisive keyboard warriors like you, bartelby?

Yawn. The 'keyboard warrior' argument is simply churlish, making no difference to my point.

I take Bartleby's less insulting point - it could easily be seen that way.

But imagine the squatters had taken a building and it turned out to be intended for use by a tory fringe group, or as a media centre. The offer of 'facilitation' is more meaningful when you bear in mind that they didn't actually have to do this.

More important, though, is that there needs to be a space where the individuals that make the TUC work and the individuals who make political squatting work can meet (and no, the various cuts demos are not it!). Struggles are dangerously disconnected in this country, and the immediate reversion to tabloidist growling by Bartleby and many like him is both symptom and cause of this.

In fucking massive mobilisations which actually challenge the strength of governments, in Italy up to 2003, in Greece the past decade, in Egypt, etc. etc... people don't see this 'distinction' between those occupying property they don't own and those on the sharp end of workerist struggles.


So, what you gonna do, Bartleby and co.?

Will you step up and unite for strength?
Or retrench to the privilege of some cosseting, well funded but co-opted bureaucracy so our struggles can be compartmentalised and picked off to be crushed?

I am all for vulgar criticism, I fully intended for my comment to be insulting. The insults were however carefully chosen to imply a deeper theory. However Nicholas didn't engage in the criticism, it was 'simply' churlish. My criticism stands irrespective of whether or not I am an active 'political squatter' (The specialised role amuses me greatly) or a keyboard warrior.

You are correct, the squatters didn't have to do this. They could have left when they realised they had entered a building that was in use. Manchester has massive amounts of empty property, it has been described as a ghost town. I would propose that there is a possibility that had the TUC or police understood the law, they would have had the squatters thrown out were it not for the bargaining. With the mass availability of empty properties in mind, I draw the following two criticisms of the action.

1) In the last week or so of a consultation on squatting it seems a little failed logic to squat a building that is in use and publicly announce this fact in order to counter the media and government hype about squatters entering in use buildings.

2) I also fail to understand the purpose of squatting a building that was already available for people they obviously consider on the same side. If they had taken a building to be used by what they may consider a political opponent, the 'tory fringe' as you say, then there may be a different spin. All they are achieving is a disruption of the organised workers movement and yet another example of squatters taking over property that is in use.

With those two criticisms in mind I can only conclude that the offer to 'facilitate' the TUC is both pompous and insulting. This action belonging to what I like to call Post-Barleyism.

I understand 'political squatters' are "somehow privileged or more advanced than others in [their] appreciation of the need for social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it and as leading or being in the forefront of the practical struggle to create this change". So perhaps as a mere layman I am missing something. Perhaps not. Perhaps "The supposedly revolutionary activity of the[se} activist[s] is a dull and sterile routine - a constant repetition of a few actions with no potential for change" only this time executed according to Marx's supplement of Hegel's notion of historical repitition.

I also refute your claim that this is a massive mobilisation that challenges the government akin to those in Italy up to 2003, in Greece the past decade, in Egypt, etc. etc. This was approximately 0.05% of the population. Irrespective of the fact that you do not define 'challenge', this protest was a mere kitten fart.

As for your bullshit rhetoric at the end, I don't subscribe to emotive nonsense.

I must return to the ether now to continue with my warrior role, there is another 'idiot' 'activist' that needs to be told how very, very wrong they are.

Bartleby, you lazy bastard.
If you'd have put as many minutes into reading my comment as you did into writing your turgid response, you might have responded to what I'd written, rather than just nitpicked.

Yes, it was obviously a fuckup to squat such a building in the first place.
As I understand it, it was a last minute choice due to a last minute illegal eviction.

So, what to do once you realise the TUC intend to use the place you've squatted for the purposes of confronting the tory conference?

Yes, go and disappear is one option. I don't dispute that many on our side would prefer that.
Confront the TUC would be another option, pretty mad, but not unimaginable knowing the revolutionary fervour of some even of the well-respected activists in our milieu.

But what they did in the end was a third option. A clever one, I reckon, considering it's spotaneity. They found away (facilitated / bargained / strongarmed / whatever) to share the space with the group with which they most lack nexus.
They took lemons and made lemonade.

So you may be embarrased. (I had previously mistaken you for someone far from 'the squat scene') But I don't think it's the actions of this crew, squatting in this place, that you're embarrassed by.
I think with your suggestions of vanguardism ('political squatters' are, to me, just those who apply some kind of political consciouness, rather than messy fuckers who would straight out assert "section 6" against anyone who comes knocking), and 'post-Barleyism' (which I personally think is disproved by the nous that the offer of facilitation demonstrates).
I think you've jumped to the conclusion that this lot are the colourful, comical K-heads from whatever corner of the squatting world you are in contact with. I think you've projected the image of squatters round your way onto this crew and it's them you're critiquing.


I could respond boringly to the rest (Didn't claim we have a massive mobilisation - Italy/ Greece/ etc. not comparable YET - they first made links between squatters and organised labour, THEN went on to mobilise massively; Dull/ sterile routine? This creates potential for botrh factions to challenge their sterility), but you've genuinely offended me (I know you'll snigger) with the 'emotive nonsense' jibe.

It's emotive because it contains the seeds of something we are genuinely crying out for.
TUC have (apparently- I'm going by your post) taken the challenge (what a joke to suggest neither they nor the police at conference time had access to immediate legal advice!), and now a political space is shared by two factions about as far apart politically as they can be, while still recognising that the clear and present enemy is this party running this government. Fuck yeah! This fuckup has turned to serendipity. Sorry if my original post didn't make clear that that was my point, but I suspect the misunderstanding was due to you reading it with your eyes half closed, already commuting to your work as ether-warrior.


So I repeat (and this is now maybe better directed at the squatters than the TUC):

Out of the comfort zone-
Step up and unite for strength!