Being a socialist, a radical, or an anarchist is not the same as 'bitching loudly on the internet every day'.

mein geist ist sagen mir NEIIIIIIINNNNN

i personally think the leftism project is going fine

probably should be letting this thread sink down the page into oblivian but I just wanted to thank you for this, I have had an especially miserable day but for real snarfed my beer when I read this and feel better now

whatever happened to the Oblivians?

we got the Reigning Sound, which was even better

Loudlybtelling you all to read this interview with the Out of the Woods collective:

On the ecological roots and uneven effects of COVID-19, communist technics and agroecology, "Planet of Humans" and ambient volkishness, putting disaster communism in a field of ecological ideologies, and staving off fatalism during breakdown and crisishttps://t.co/c4unfPrdLu

— Kai Bosworth (@kaibosworth) May 14, 2020

The now well-documented failings at Commune magazine are not Commune's failings alone. Out of the Woods stands in solidarity with the survivor, but understands this solidarity to extend to an examination of our own structures. This statement addresses theses issues and commits to further actions.

Content note: rape, failures of accountability

In December 2019 we became aware that a founding editor of Commune magazine, in which we have published, is a rapist. In addition to writing for Commune in late 2018, some of us have personal connections with people who have been involved in Commune’s editorial team. For one OotW member these are close ties of friendship.

We were encouraged by Commune's initial response, which included the rapist stepping down from involvement, a restructuring of their editorial collective and a commitment to an overhaul of accountability processes. We also resolved to keep an eye on developments. We should have made this resolve public. We are now saddened and angered to learn of significant and persistent failings by Commune, which contributed to: 1) the breakdown of the rapist’s accountability process; and 2) a failure for Commune to make itself accountable.

These failings have been carefully detailed by the survivor, Leila Raven, here. We offer our unstinting solidarity to Raven, and reiterate her demand for Commune to cease operations and distribute any remaining funds to Black-led survivor movements. We also note that Raven and one of her supporters in the accountability process have expressed disappointment at the uneven distribution of the labour of accountability within Commune. This corresponds with our understanding: that it was disproportionately undertaken by female survivors within the Commune collective, and was hindered by the disengagement and poor communication of others.

Further, we fully agree with Leila Raven: this is not Commune's failure alone, but is part of a much broader and persistent failure on the left – and in particular on the white left – to develop an adequate, sustainable approach to accountability. We are part of this left. Further, we are acutely aware of the similarities between Commune and ourselves: namely, that we are a geographically disparate collective, many of whom have not met each other; that we are too white; and that we have no accountability procedures in place. We are also overwhelmingly male. We thus hear Raven’s call for further accountability to be addressing us, and to provide clarity, urgency and additional requirements to changes to our collective to which we had already committed. We are hugely grateful for this, and for the labour of abolitionist accountability movements more broadly.

We believe it is incumbent on us to create these processes now, before they are called upon. Measures for transparency and accountability must be in place before an episode of violence or abuse is brought to light, not after. This is a clear lesson from the failures at Commune.

We are thus committed to developing a procedure through which people can raise concerns about either the collective as a whole or individual members thereof, with clear expectations for how this information will be acted upon. We will ensure this statement is easily accessible. This will be complicated by the fact that some of our members maintain a degree of anonymity for security/employment reasons, but such an issue should not be an excuse for us collectively. We will be publishing more on this as soon as we can, and no later than the end of June 2020.

We have already committed to expanding core membership of Out of the Woods to address the disproportionate number of white men involved. Leila’s post reminds us of the importance of this task. It also leads us to commit to new members: 1) being empowered to determine Out of the Woods’ direction of travel, in all senses; 2) not being burdened with the labour of making us accountable. Accordingly, we will be putting in place onboarding procedures.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact any, some or all of the below. Not everyone currently active in the collective is listed as some members wish to remain completely anonymous.

from US Politics thread

In the better world where all housing is social (either state-owned or communes or co-ops of somekind) or personally owned, we wouldn't be evicting people for failure to pay, obviously. In the event that someone was so loud (or whatever) it became a problem - which comprises what percentage of evictions? - then we're going to have to work up a system for how to deal with it! Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people.

If only it were so simple ... like, if only money didn't exist or the only problems with shared housing were noise violations. If only ... there are so many complex issues I have observed (mostly in terms of the aftermath / dealing with fallout and mess). Some of them are very "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

Vienna has one of the best housing situation in the western world and it's a very complex system that uses a mix of social housing, a whole set of rent control that varies rather wildly and new developments, it works much better than what we see throughout the US and Canada. Simple solutions for complex problems never work for anything, it's rather the opposite in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting that the only conceivable problem is having a 26-piece drum set in your one bedroom apartment, that was an example - but the greater point is that whatever problems arise, they would not be dealt with by evictions as we know them today. In a socialist future where housing is a guaranteed right, we would have to create a system to deal with these issues.

ie no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances, which is what evictions are in our current world.

here are some of the issues I have observed that have led to evictions/threatened evictions in communal/co-op housing outside of failure to pay rent or contribute labor in lieu of payment:

sexual assault
racism
homophobia/transphobia
substance abuse
mental illness
cruelty to animals/negligence of care for animals
romantic breakups
lack of concern for safety of others in terms of external security (failure to lock doors, etc)
slovenliness/bad housekeeping
hoarding
unsafe construction, maintenance, etc.
theft
defending the "wrong person" in a dispute

ie no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances, which is what evictions are in our current world.

― onlyfans.com/hunterb (milo z), Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39 AM (twenty-six seconds ago)

people should have the right to housing, but to me, that means, if they get evicted, there would be other housing available, not that they have a right to stay where they are no matter what.

That would be the system I'm talking about that has to be figured out.

Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people.

Regardless, you're pointing to various outlier cases for eviction but those are not the prime movers of eviction in our world - Nazis running dogfighting rings are not running up the getting kicked out numbers. Women, persons of color and families with young children are more likely to be evicted than other persons or groups.

Once you take rent out of the equation, you're simply dealing conceptually with far fewer cases overall.

Let me know when the goalposts are in their permanent position, milo.

? That was in the part you quoted initially.

Like, the entire last half of what you quoted is about the need in an evictionless/landlordless society to deal with problem cases.

you were arguing that evictions shouldn't happen ever.

and the things you were saying, and the ways you were saying them, made it sound to me that you really are trying to re-invent the wheel, and like, you have little experience or knowledge of actual practice of communal/co-op housing in the US.

Simple solutions for complex problems never work for anything

tell that to finland
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

which is why I revived this thread ... as people actually "doing the work" will likely shake their heads in recognition of the unfortunate real problems that radical housing has. And I am not advocating for the status quo here, I'm saying, "people are messy. community is messy. The work can be hard."

Yes, and I repeated it like five posts ago - no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances.

That's what an eviction in our world is. You don't get kicked out after failing to pay rent for 90 days to be moved into another home.

How easily can the model be replicated in other European countries?

The Housing First model can be replicated even though housing conditions may vary from country to country in Europe. Providing permanent homes for the homeless should be a target instead of temporary solutions.

There is no quick fix to all life situations but a solid base provides the foundations upon which to improve the welfare of the homeless. The first step in change is the change in attitudes.

id need to know a lot more about the housing situation in finland before i was in any way convinced anywhere else in the word had one simple finnish step to success tbh

I wasn't asked about "communal/co-op housing in the US," I was asked, in what you quoted, about the principle behind an objection evictions and landlords.

That principle is centered in no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances. It's also fundamentally a question of remaking society, because you have to get rid of the landlords doing 99.9% of the evicting to start with.

so, in the meantime while we're waiting for the abolition of private ownership of real estate, what should we do, milo?

You've to count houses and people and then do a lot more than counting to determine housing need before you start looking at who owns what ime

"get rid of landlords" is worthless cant

That was answered in the other thread, right under the part you quoted!

But no one should ever, under any circumstances, be rendered unhoused - which is what eviction in the here and now reality does. And if you get evicted in the here and now, no one should tell you not to fuck up the drywall or that you're a bad person for doing so.

Because the initial offhand comment was about Trump being a bad guy because he'd be the sort to do property damage after getting evicted.

So while we're waiting for the abolition of real estate speculation, the landlord can pay to resod the yard where you did a donut on your way to sleeping in your car.

the landlord can pay to resod the yard where you did a donut on your way to sleeping in your car.

but we do still live in this world and the abolition of capitalism is nowhere in sight, so in the meantime that's your brilliant idea of what to do? pull your finger out.

xp - uh, you know that depending on the amount and type of property damage, that could result in more people getting evicted for life safety hazards and unhabitable conditions ... but hey, everything is so simple in miloworld!

Yes, my brilliant idea is to not clutch my pearls and shame people who are being put on the streets. Part of capitalism is risk - even if you're a sweet little elderly person with five rental properties, you're taking a risk that when you evict someone, they might do some damage on the way out. Tough.

i should stop posting on this thread, as I value ILX as a respite from work, as opposed to a reminder of the stress of my work

from "no more landlords" to "everybody but me shames the homeless" in zero steps

your substance is showing, buck

you know, I would have plenty of sympathy for the sweet elderly lady if the person she were evicting was like Donald Trump, an abusive, racist rapist douchebag.

Not everybody but me, specifically the person who illustrated Donald Trump's badness by saying he'd do a donut in the yard after getting evicted in the other thread - the genesis os my basic statement of principle that no one should be evicted, that no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances.

glad to know that Donald Trump can crash on yr couch until he finds a place, milo!

trucker hat guy from Gear!'s house

absolutely love threads like these

A: lol you just love bitching about stuff and not offering solutions, what should we do then?
B: well they do it like this here
C: lol whatever there’s more to it than that, but in the meantime I’m going to outright condescend to you and then call you the dickhead for reacting to it

There must come a point, at some point, where certain ilxors might think how their posts might read to someone who, for example, might never have voted for the winner in a general election in their life, who might still be living at home at an age their parents had independent lives and families, who might be spending tons of money on shared accommodation. Surely you might consider at some stage how someone faced with a future as bleak as the one oncoming might react to being constantly prodded for sport on here by people pretending to agree with them? If you’re not going to bother engaging properly then killfile and move on, tbh.

Milo, what do you think of the housing first program in Finland?

from "no more landlords" to "everybody but me shames the homeless" in zero steps

your substance is showing, buck

Sure, if Donald Trump loses all of his money and goes to New York prison for a couple of years, it would be unconscionable for a 80 year old man to be pushed out to living on the streets. This is a hill I'm overjoyed to die on.

tell that to finland
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

I've read a lot of housing first and no, it wasn't as simple as 'let's end homelessness uh'.

The Donald Trump hypothetical is so wild, why is it even used?

milo, I don't use killfile so I know there isn't some phantom poster you are arguing with whose posts I have hidden. Maybe if there were I wouldn't be so confused.

i never have any idea where milo finds all this patience. a real inspiration.

wait are people joking or did this argument really start over the idea of donald trump becoming unhoused

xp real mystery why this site can’t attract younger posters, isn’t it

As someone who works with homelessness quite a bit, I've seen situations were evictions saved lives.

Homelessness on the other hand is a scourge that shouldn't happen to anyone ever.

wait are people joking or did this argument really start over the idea of donald trump becoming unhoused

yes! yes it did!

yeah true maybe they should roll up into state capitols heavily armed

― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Saturday, 16 May 2020 18:13 (eight months ago) bookmarkflaglink

Woahhhh hang on a sec what did this guy know

Hey guy, same thing as anyone else I guess. maga idiots were rolling up into state capitols heavily armed last spring while everyone shrugged. and that if anyone left of David Frum were to do anything but bitch on the internet they’d be mowed down in a matter of minutes

never 4get

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/99f19f62d9ed48a084b4c5928d3aa98d/2400.jpeg