I may be missing a point here, but to clarify, the bit of this quote that I agreed with,
"Rather than writing lengthy posts in support of Squires & Partners, who are quite literally the architects of the gentrification of that section of Brixton, why not spend that time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing & poverty?"
Was that I need to spend more time researching some of the issues around gentrification, housing and poverty. I don't think I've agreed that S&P are helping to set a precedent, and I also haven't said that their membership requirements are cheap. I said that for some, in the context of private membership, £23 per month isn't a lot of money.
I agree with most of what you write. I think your point about S&P "inevitably setting a precedent and normalise a life style and an attitude that shows little respect for existing social structures... embrac[ing] the privatisation of culture and normalises exclusion", is really very interesting. I doubt that was ever their intention and I often find myself coming over Kantian when it comes to cause, effect, and intention, but it may well be that by moving to Brixton, S&P have helped to normalise a lifestyle and an attitude that shows little respect for existing social structures - but does this mark S&P out from many other businesses that have set up in Brixton over the last 150 years? If the argument is anti-capitalist, then okay, I get it. Let's have that argument, but I feel comfortable that the overall impact, in the wider context of a 21st century capitalist nation, of S&P investing millions of pounds in Brixton, and creating jobs (a number of businesses operate out of the space that S&P re-developed) is a good thing for Brixton - maybe not your Brixton, this person's Brixton, or that person's Brixton - but Brixton will outlive us all, and we will scarcely recognise it as ours for longer than a decade.
