The problem is, that is the rationale of the thief or the rapist.
True, that is also the rationale of the bourgeoisie and its State.
But then of course, it is also the rationale behind some of the squats being free clinics (nobody goes without free healthcare in Exarchia, not even refugees who are denied access to healthcare by the State) and some of them being community kitchens (nobody goes hungry in Exarchia, not even refugees), etc. If I were in Exarchia it would be in my interest to get free healthcare if needed, and it's also in the interest of the other people there,
so we come together and make it happen.
If that philosophy is accepted (that we can just declare our own beliefs upon others), then there is no logical objection to the State dropping the hammer.
Obviously, the objection isn't logical but
physical. There is no logical way to go from an ought to an is, objections are not, in the final analysis, logical. This holds true just as much for the bourgeoisie and its State btw, it has no logical objection to the working and underclass dropping the hammer, all it has is an application of its might (MAT in particular in this case).
Just to be clear, those objections don't necessarily need to take the form of throwing Molotov cocktails on State forces, but also things like labour strikes and stuff like that. The point is that it's not a battle of ideas but one of political might.
That's their belief, and anyone's belief is valid, right?
No idea where you got that conclusion from, this isn't about beliefs being valid or not. Fundamentally the struggle isn't fought in the so-called marketplace of ideas (which, as the name already suggests, is structured so as to reinforce ideas which are profitable to capital) but on the streets and in the workplaces. There may be many people in Greece watching their TV's and believing all that government BS about the illegals bringing drugs and stuff, but they're mostly not going to come out in the streets to
actually contest the point.
How idiotic it would be to choose to fight in disadvantageous terrain.
Also, I'd disagree with Max on property. When you squat property, you are also stealing the fruits of a life's work. In essence, stealing his life at the threat of violence. Someone else shares that philosophy.
The bourgeoisie doesn't work, by definition. Your vulgar interpretation is also slightly ridiculous, as if people are going to squat granma's little apartment. Consider, on the other hand, the rich businessman who has bought 100 apartments in Exarchia to turn them into luxury AirBnb's and is now petitioning the government to "clean up" Exarchia so his investment pays off well (buy low, get the government to help increase the pricing, rent out high...profit!). Suppose 98 of them get squatted and turned into social centers, refugee accommodations, etc. That still leaves everyone with at least two apartments in the neighbourhood.
Now suppose that granma's apartment isn't just left alone, but that granma, when she has a health problem, can visit the local free clinic. When her pension has been slashed or unpaid and she's having financial problems she can eat at the local community kitchen. Even suppose that, when granma needs surgery, some corrupt doctor demands a bribe she can't pay with her small pension, and somehow
a bunch of people show up at the doctor's office to tell him what's up.
At this point it should be noted that the particular philosophy you're disagreeing with does not include normative claims, you can be as altruistic as you want.[*] The point is that you're being altruistic because
you want to, not because you're serving some higher ideal of your own creation, as if you're enslaved to an idea that only exists in your head anyway ("I'm being altruistic because I'm serving God's will", "I'm being altruistic because I'm serving a moral code", etc).
But even if we accept your vulgar interpretation, then your reasoning is still ridiculous. Which do you think will be the better option:
- Squatting granma's apartment and getting everyone against you and nobody helps you out when you get evicted and thrown in camps.
- Squatting the rich businessman's apartments.
- Squatting the rich businessman's apartments as well as everything in the paragraphs above about granma getting free healthcare etc. Note that this taking care of granma, even in purely amoral power terms, also means yet another door in the neighbourhood that opens for insurgents and closes again for the cops (how do you think those groups of neighbourhood residents who've attacked MAT positions simply "disappear" again into the streets without getting caught? Remember that physics tells us that there is no such thing as
actual disappearance.)
Come to think of it, maybe that's another reason that the liberals and fash want the writings removed, since the trivially correct solution to the underlying social problems tends to quickly get published in Exarchia. Or at least a better solution than the State's "If we throw random migrants into concentration camps then that will solve everything, because reasons":
[*] See for example
here:
John Beverley Robinson said:
In brief, egoism in its modern interpretation, is the antithesis, not of altruism, but of idealism. The ordinary person — the idealist — subordinates their interests to the interests of their ideals, and usually suffers for it. The egoist is fooled by no ideals: she/he discards them or uses them, as may suit his own interest. If he/she likes to be altruistic, they will sacrifice themselves for others; but only because they like to do so; they demand no gratitude nor glory in return
)
