From this week’s readings, “¡Viva Loisaida Libre!” by Bill Weinberg was the most reactive piece I have read all semester. To me, it was by far the text that exemplified the problematic mindset of many authors throughout this course. I completely disagree with this type of structure in which Weinberg tries to present. Rather my complaints aren’t in the moral aspects of his vision, nor the shock of such goals, but rather the plausibility in his “utopia”.
For Weinberg, the ideal societal structure when it comes to land and property is that of a self-sustained “green” community that resists large corporate’s glutinous, detrimental, and abusive behavior onto the said land. His plan of achievement is the, “banning of absentee landlords. All buildings not owned by neighborhood residents will be expropriated without compensation and turned over to the tenants to be run cooperatively.” (Weinberg, 39). Here he wants to strip land from owners who don’t utilize it for the community. However, this is an extreme action, and its probability and plausibility are close to none in the modern day.
Not only that, his plan to make the area into a revolutionary green and virtues zone consists of other extreme ideas. Weinberg’s vision for the community is that of: “The bicycle will become the predominant mode of transportation” (Weinberg, 40), “The police will be replaced with neighborhood watch groups and rotating block patrols of local residents.” (Weinberg, 41), and “… a program of total recycling will be instated.” (Weinberg, 41). Here he wants to have an area that operates with man-powered transportation, no policing, and 100% recyclable waste. When handling problems that would arise, he states that, “… neighborhood’s sense of community will evaporate the climate of fear and alienation in which violent crime thrives. The young, strong, and healthy will take responsibility for protecting the backs of the elderly, infirm and disable” (Weinberg, 41). Any violators would be, “… escorted to the neighborhood’s borders – or thrown into the East River.” (Weinberg, 41). Indeed an utterly valid view on how a structure of society can operate, the problem that truly bothers me is the process in which Weinberg attempts to obtain such a community.
Weinberg pushes an agenda of secession and breaking away from the status quo in the metaphoric as well as the literal sense. This agenda ultimately entails the vilification of the norm. The current is terrible, Weinberg progressive idea is good, choosing good seems to be the logical idea; thus, to support the standard makes you a supporter of the detrimental. He makes his end goal seem sustainable and logical however his agenda holds reliance upon the foundation of people being righteous. There is no accountability in acknowledgment that society operates the way it does because of people. Instead, he dismisses the innate bad within all by blaming a system, following that his stance stems from a focus of the end goal. Hence my biggest complaint, plausibility. Never would his end goal be achieved due to his end goal being the problem. Its innate vilification of the current doesn’t provide any incentive for the current to move towards Weinberg’s society. For a better community to realistic, there must be an operation of compromise in which Weinberg lacks.
Do you think Weinberg was aiming to be realistic in this essay? I really read it as more of a utopian manifesto, which I think you did too for a minute. At the same time, as we discussed in class, some of his ideas are really in discussion today — 20 years later — and have been implemented on small and large scales in other parts of the world. Utopian manifestos are rarely intended to be read as practical instructions for manifesting what they propose. Thomas More’s Utopia (which you surely will read for your colloquium prep!) is not feasible, but it does magnify some of the assumptions that we take for granted in the way we currently behave. And I think that’s the function of many of our readings from the Bible to Caffentzis and Federici to Weinberg — to highlight ways things could be otherwise if we perhaps attended to what Lincoln (and later Obama) called “our better angels” rather than our innate selfishness. That said, I agree with you that Weinberg expects perhaps too much from our “sense of community.” Communities do not run smoothly even if they hold the same values and conflict — even violent conflict — is impossible to eliminate.