(en) rebellion-osl.ch: Swiss, Let the city, let the town! (fr, pt)

"The withdrawal of the Aventine is certainly a political action, but business outside of 
institutional frameworks recognized, which ultimately gives the status of the plebeians 
political issues by changing these institutional frameworks. That is one lesson of history 
that can be meditated as a political lesson "Laurent L?vy, Politics offscreen, 2012. ---- 
A roof is a need for each e-need and says says the same forehand. Not a right that is 
granted by any separate power but a right won by the social mobilization, struggle. In 
other words, a cultural and symbolic political victory, a strategic move related to the 
accumulation of anti-hegemonic practices. ---- The roof and the key ---- Must still 
specify what a roof. Because it is not just to be safe, to have a place to live. It must 
also meet the conditions of dignity, autonomy, possible construction of a life that gives 
us the opportunity of freedom, community, fun to be there and live next to other.

There are obvious problems we're talking about every day. Rents are too expensive. There 
is not enough housing or housing found on the market are not suitable for our needs do not 
match our resources. But these ordinary and so decisive housing problems, contain other. 
There are more and more people are not ordinary people. Those whose common sense, subject 
to the power, decreed that he / they did not even get what we may designate the other as 
decent housing. There are people who end their lives in the EMS, the prisoner-era-s, the 
sick, the immigrant-es, precarious and irregular / eras, young people who want to leave 
the family home, and many others, without forget the people who live on the margins of the 
system designates as conditions almost normal existence. For all those people, housing is 
just a minimum of survival, a space where we stifles rather than a place of life.

For us, the right to housing, the right to a space that makes possible shelter and 
movement, autonomy and the possibility of freely chosen community, access to the city, its 
territories, equipment. This is a social right, equal to all. Who wants to look at the 
city and society as they are, it will be how quickly such a claim is radical, how it 
relates to the very heart of the system, urban and social, a decisive attack.

The right to housing is opposed point by point to the requirement of capitalist 
valorization, to the unbridled pursuit of profit, accumulation of power. Profits, rent, 
speculation, are not merely economic exploitation. They are elements of a power system. 
They tell us the command, state power, subordination. Just consider a somewhat watchful 
eye of social reality to see how one who is a tenant or seeking a place to live between 
the owner in a position of subordination. The property is the other face of power. The 
state is the institution, the organization and the relationship that protects it. Power 
and profit reduce this social need a minimum survival increasingly narrow, increasingly 
restricted to its negation.

To realize the right to housing should be reduced ownership, breaking profit, impose by 
popular direct action against the power-and social law.

Socialization, communism, freebies

From this point of view, it is communist and libertarian claim of gratuity which is our 
main goal. It is indeed a goal-process and not a final goal to be achieved in distant 
tomorrow and sing one morning, perhaps. It is the stubborn fight ever powerful to wrest 
political and economic system to ever more things. Basically, the right to housing, such 
as the right to health, education, social security, and of course the city correspond to a 
fight against the system. For this fight we impose the socialization of wealth and 
resources to meet basic needs. It is to win the right of social majorities now dominated, 
exploited and alienated to a better life, emancipation.

What it is is indeed out on each point where it is possible to subordinate position to 
access areas of equality and freedom wrested from the system-imposed against power against 
him.

In this dynamic construction of popular power, no land is foreign to us. It is legitimate 
to occupy empty buildings and housing, thus making their socialization to meet the needs 
of people and groups who do not find the space they / they claim and thus occupy. However, 
it is also necessary to battle on all fronts which plays the right to housing in order to 
impose not only our immediate needs but the design that social movements and struggles are 
emerging from the collective need, social law. The conquest free for a growing number of 
goods, benefits and services, is now at the heart of the Communist requirement. Everything 
is free, requires
socialization and becomes public.

The state machine in its ordinary operation, as we have said, the other side of ownership. 
She never CONSEDE nothing on ground of social law without it there is forced, coerced by 
the fighting, shaped and reshaped in this direction. For this reason, the purely 
institutional activity in the field of housing, like all others, is not only insufficient 
but unable to take into account the demands and the needs of large majorities. We must 
therefore intervene boldly coerce and force the institutional policies, make up the 
alternatives in terms of socialization of the land, the right to requisition, development 
of social and popular habitat, enforceable property rights, legitimacy occupations.

All this is achieved primarily and essentially in practice, in the exercise of critical 
and utopian thought in the project. Institutional action is ultimately records the balance 
of power. But to say that in no way means that we agree to abandon all claims on resources 
and means of public action. Rather, the popular direct action carries a draft 
socialization of everything today the State claims as its own and whose institutional 
political activity wants sole housekeeper.

Vive la Commune

The history of social struggle is punctuated by countless battles ranging from occupation 
to the rent strike, intervention and control of urban development in the insurgency taking 
cities and their transformation whose Paris Commune of 1871
probably remains the iconic reference.

Today, being tenant is like being proletarian. It is a state where the system requires 
submission and allegiance, where power claims to control every part of our lives, our 
feelings, our thoughts. Require self-determination of our lives, want freedom and 
equality, even from claims
initially modest, is suddenly into a movement that opposes the system
whole domination.

Claim for each and every one roof, communal spaces, places to be able to live together and 
to be able to live in solitude, when you want, all in direct contradiction with the 
system. Refuse to be exploited by rent a second time after being operated, are in paid 
work, in unemployment or social assistance, it is a claim of rebellion. This is actually a 
Communist claim, which proclaims: "To each according to his needs-e". She asked to embody 
a movement socialization increasingly wide. That is to say, by the passage over the common 
good balance of power, all the resources, land, buildings and spaces possible. In this 
sense, it is a politically difficult move because it is to achieve while imposing a 
structure of policy fundamentally contradictory practices with material and symbolic 
interests of the dominant classes, in confrontation with the apparatus coaching and 
leadership of the company and its state and kernel.

This is more evident when one considers the issues raised by the public policies of social 
housing, the transition from ground to the public sector, general management policies and 
planning and urban development.

The government shall not engage in even a very partial satisfaction of social needs that 
struggles under pressure, that under the stress exerted on them practices and institutions 
of power-cons. Everything starts with action and alternative positions with the change of 
circumstances and design they impose. Nothing progresses and continues without this 
popular mobilization.

Bases for miles lives

For us, that says right to housing, said the same forehand to the city. Take the city, 
build and produce according to our needs, aspirations and dreams allow people to move 
freely therein, to access all of drift with their fantasies and their dreams will impose 
direct democracy movement is and bringing the city is what extends the right to a roof. 
The city is first open the possibility of being out of fate that we are initially 
assigned. The roof, the house is a basic autonomy that allows us to constantly consider 
living many lives without ever being totally prisoners none of them.

In the globalized capitalism, the city changes and unfolds to escape all-against powers 
far in history had entered development. The city is and has always been a contradictory 
entity where the social order is part of the territory, where public, private, state, 
material and symbolic overlap, where the system of domination attempts to register in the 
head and the same body of people, in the recognition that they have land and space. But 
the city has also been the place of the people, something that met, including 
culturally-power against a more or less explicit but still present, an arrangement of 
resistors, a possible flows and movements whose cities in insurrection is the most 
beautiful and the most slender shape.

Red light districts, areas of strength, areas of insurgency, while this is not an 
architecture, urban layout, device power. All this, in fact, escapes arrangements 
domination, emancipated, requires whole territories drifts toward liberation. The 
revolutionary history, the history of insurgent cities, says ultimately, how the city is 
invented by us, recovery.

Assignments

Globalized capitalism's willingness to break it all, preventing mobility, by channeling 
according routes determined by the power and entertainment industries and consumption, or 
new arrangements of cognitive capitalism restructured, recomposed with the metropolis 
constitutes a new ground of recovery.

More capitalist metropolis extends and root and spreads more stress, classification, 
assignment of territories and paths cut each other without passages, without 
communications, vested in specialized activities. The capitalist city project is the 
construction of route and time imposed on human beings is the confinement of each and 
every condition in the assigned-e. This general project we see getting into specific 
policies: gentrification, the public transport policy, the prohibition of city centers to 
beggar-es and non-conforming people, hardness against demonstrations and street actions 
... the commodification of everything. The multiplication of policies and controls, 
cloisonn? Land Feature. Space subject.

We do not want a pseudo-social mix that would put the system as a democratic alibi quota 
modest people in each ward or in each building. We do not want a pseudo-right to the city 
that would make a survival kit in public service and two or three years of participatory 
democracy adulterated the spectacle of a tie between the inhabitants of a territory urban. 
We reject population control be baptized for the gallery "integral construction" or 
"establishment of solidarity." This is in contrast to fully inhabit the city, so to be 
able to move about, to register our imagination, our desires and symbols. It is in this 
sense that a claim such as free public transport, which assumes ownership and use of 
social wealth to finance such a policy makes sense. Able to move, move, free access, that 
is, for a bit, begin to take the city. And the city is taken both in its material 
arrangements in its symbolic construction. She turns in our effort to gain politically and 
culturally to live.

All cities has its column Vand?me

We claim culture and imaginary significations red belts, insurgeants neighborhoods 
communard dream, hence the desire to escape the ghetto, whatever it is, to reverse the 
arrangement of the territory in a project that is ours. To the very heart of the metropolis.

This implies, of course, fight on all aspects of urban policy. To be able to oppose the 
capitalist metropolis arrangements and alternative forms where time sometimes gradually, 
sometimes by events, by BoNTs and qualitative leaps, the need for communism and freedom 
required for the full life of men and women.

What have we to oppose the misery
urban, not only as a construction project, organization planning, provision of space but 
also in terms of capacity here and now to experience something different, urban order to 
return the system to make instead of the requirements of circulation of capital projects 
of our own drift, our free movement? Burst by the social movement misery of urban 
arrangement, impose against capitalist exploitation needs of homes and spaces exploited 
and oppressed majorities and retake the city and turn from our libertarian communist 
subjectivity by a stubborn social ownership and against-power movement. To the town.

Fulcrum:

The text of Michel Colin we quote below, presents one of the foundations of our ideas and 
contributions that make this number. It is taken from an article entitled "Metropolises of 
Europe, conflict dynamics" published in the journal Multitudes, No. 43 in 2010.

If metropolitan city is the territory where plays all the new capital / labor ratio, then 
it is also the central place of conflict and power relations that changes in the 
transition from Fordism to globalization. Here we try to identify some of the issues from 
research on large urban projects in France and Europe.
Argue that value creation is now in the city, not only in the business, do not mean first 
of all a simple movement and places the subject in a antagonism unchanged, a passage of 
the struggles of the working class against plant those multitudes against the metropolis. 
The balance of power is more complex today along with the wealth created and the forms of 
exploitation into action a new productive force biopolitics in the sense that that's life 
itself is put into productivity. Toni Negri perfectly analyzed this era of real 
subsumption of all life, captured by the new capitalism and now without further outside, 
where everyone is swept up in a nest of work in his life, in a space flexibility, 
intermittent and migratory flows that establish the metropolis. But compared to the 
metropolis is no way that the plant or to the mobile intermittent or precarious for 
entrepreneur or for the multitudes of men and women put in a position to produce wealth in 
every moment their lives and in many places in that other territory. And this because they 
also learn in this metropolis a new power unrelated to the simple power of workers protest 
in the company. The city has nothing to do with the plant, as it was radically different 
from the factory. Capital changes, the work also, and too bad for people tired just like 
the title Jacques Ranci?re.Le liberalism also likens the city to a company where the space 
of accumulation, investment and recovery could now outsource in culture, events and 
spectacular architecture.