Irish anarchism, autonomy and social spaces.
Feb 4 2006 19:23
This weekend unfortunately due to unforseen circumstances Dublins seomra spraoi (ss) libertarian social space was unable to open.
I attended the odd SS meeting but wasn't heavily involved myself apart from doing a film showing and banner making day there. So I'm trying to approach this from a relatively neutral stance.
In Dublin a lot of people have been putting energy into squatting and social centre efforts since 2003 with the Disco Disco house which was evicted within a few hours. The magpie house followed which lasted for about 6months provided meeting space and made some people more militant but provided little else. After this various attempts at squatted housing for punx followed - leading to various dramatic evictions after a few weeks/days. Take back the city was a poor attempt to highlight the lack of "social space" in the city. Seomra spraoi was a more mainstream and realistic approach to this problem and is yet again without a space.
Given all the debate about the usefulness of Summit hopping VS Local organising (the two in my opinion are not mutually exclusive) how do people feel about the social centre/temporary autonomous zone tendency within Irish anarchism?
Feb 6 2006 16:02
#2
yeah, me and george were talking about this when i was back (read george was lecturing me 
) he pointed out that for all their work seomra spraoi had managed to get a space for meetings, and not a hell of a lot more, which had already been available courtesy of the wsm, and there was also EENGO and the teachers for big ones. i know they had hoped to expand into other rooms in the gaff and have a proper social space but that didnt happen unfortunately. its a really nice building, pity about the current occupant..
i dunno, i think the purpose of the place was always pretty vague, it's kind of like, who is the community that the place is trying to serve?? is the energy worthwhile? i do think the idea is good, although with less wankers attached, maybe people should be less worried about squatting.
oh and whats the story with the basta people, arent they trying to sort a place??? whats happening with that? seems ambitious. sorry for messy post, but you seemed lonely. can post later about my experience with ungdomshuset here, but i gotta get to a meeting there now.
Feb 6 2006 23:44
#3
hmmm...
i think seomra spraoi could be a really good thing (of course i would say that) but that the space on abbey street was unsuitable for a couple of reasons.
the point in creating a social centre in my view is not to reclaim some space from capitalism! or to take down the system, one empty space at a time! such views see capital as spatial, rather than constituted through social relations. The point is to try and create different relations and to challenge those of capital. A social centre should really be a space where this can happen to a different extent than otherwise possible. at the time we lost the space, we were only really starting to explore these potentials, but initial signs were good. There was going to be an extensive film, audio, book and zine library and free net access while there was a drop-in space going on. Social events, which were beginning to be planned properly, would allow for a community to build up around the space, which isn't itself a revolution, but can be important in a lot of ways.
The vagueness of the term 'community' is a problem, and i think we frequently allow ourselves to be deceived into imagining a wider community than exists. I think it is a mistake to assume that there is some sort of solid community, whom the space will be serving. the group itself came out various different networks, artistic and political, largely, and it grew and changed as it went on. Ideally, the space would become a point around which these networks can come together and allow for sharing and development of ideas. Although some people make a lot of political differences in the group (as in some of the group had politics, others didn't) I think that's the wrong approach. We were never trying to create an anarchist space, and I'm not sure how that would have been useful.
In terms of the relations we were trying to foster, the understanding was pretty unanimous. It was not a service, it was run by the users for the users, seomra spraoi was the project group which would bring it about, not the group who would end up running the space. We tried to develop an 'inhouse commons', at least in terms of allowing for a free database and free access to resources and also to create a space where people would feel comfortable and happy. It was also intended to be an artistic space, with art based events and a rotating gallery planned for downstairs.
The problems with that space in particular came about because people didn't feel either confident or comfortable there. We didn't feel confident as a group because the situation kept on changing, we thought we would be able to move downstairs into a room better suited for public access and then that changed suddenly, because the occupant changed his mind. We were hampered in moving into the room nearest us because other people who used the space for a party put all the accumulated rubbish from clearing out their rooms into the one we had earmarked. It was pretty frustrating, we had lots of good ideas, but never the confidence to carry them through. Also, people using the space, especially newcomers didn't feel comfortable or welcome, due to the changing moods of the occupant. One particularly infamous incident is when he went into an anarcha-fem meeting to shout at someone there for leaving the door open (he came in just as they were talking about how men frequently talk over women in meetings, i think). All in all, erratic behaviour meant that the spontaneity and creativity of the space was never realised, it got stifled by an inability to define our boundaries with the occupant.
All in all, I think we held onto the space for so long because we were so relieved to get one, and didn't want to face up to the fact that the occupant's 'eccentricity' precluded us from doing the things we want to do.
Feb 7 2006 20:47
#4
so.. what now??
Feb 7 2006 21:15
#5
patience my dear chap, we will see.
won't be at the next meeting but hopefully we can sort out some sort of plan soon. i think we need to be more decisive on what we're doing.
Feb 12 2006 10:21
#6
the two arent mutually exclusive but what happens is people put their energies and time into one thing, and because there's only a small pool of 'activists' in the city, other issues get neglected or put on the back burner, and then dont get the attention they deserve.
by this i mean that over the past 12+ months a lot of the libertarian effort in the city has been going into meetings, fundraisers at myra, looking for a space, logistical problems with space, etc - when at the same time you had the furore over the CIA using shannon erupt with zero response from the (a) scene, shell to sea 5 were in prison with a solidarity cycle out to wheatfield only planned 90 days ater they were jailed (they were released before it happened), and other 'hot' issues were just left to cool.
i guess its a question of priorities for people, and what they want to devote their efforts to. personally i dont think controlling a physical space is that important at the moment when numbers in the city/country are still small, and there are other spaces which can accomodate.
no replies?