I found in the article by Bill Weinberg extremely interesting and very telling of an anarchist punk’s take on communal empowerment through a peaceful economic and political revolution. His ideas of collective organization stem from a distaste of external/occupying forces and trends influencing the value placed upon development and the subsequent shape a community takes. Though not solely based around economic tools of extraction (markets) or organized crime this distaste for external power structures is channeled towards all forms of the top-down civic administration which limits true communal empowerment.
This removal or rather a refusal of exterior urban infrastructure though incredibly badass in its revolutionary spirit puts the otis of maintaining an independent collective of individuals on the resident’s ability to fight off self-interested predatory parties. This is done through the legitimization of the community, not through the begging the city from a place of weakness, the ‘defanged community board 3’, but rather it must come from a revolutionary communal board. Bull Refers to the organization of the community to be representative of the popular opinion of residents and not token sentiments of understanding in the face of constant private interests.
Stemming from local neighborhood meetings “the Popular community board’ will exist as a tool of democratic chaos using resident’s votes to create a narrative separating the Lower Eastside into an autonomous zone dubbed LESAZ. The extreme revolutionary spirit found within this LESAZ manifesto pays tribute to the background of the area of protest and revolution, though in contemporary markets such actions may be detrimental
When discussing the presence of external economic actors, I complete agreeing with Bill’s opinions that they would need to rely on the taxing of large economic figures such as corporations for support. Though to seek to revolutionize the taxing systems of one of the most valued systems of private development in the world may prove to take much longer than feasible for a ‘revolutionary’ transition. This coupled with the innate distaste for any external influence top-down systems project onto the community, aesthetically or economically, adds to the list of strong enemies, or lack of wealthy allies. As I highly doubt there would be a violent extraction of Mcdonalds and corporations like it, the removing of uncharacteristic’ behemoths may be more effort than its worth. The litigious fees as well should corporations such as McDonald’s chose to fight a forced removal would be enough to cripple early economic markets severely. This lack of strong financial support safe would not be conducive in maintaining self-sufficiency especially in the expertise and labor that would be required. These strong ideologies would, in fact, lead to the alienation of many New York Institutions in their survival perhaps evolve them but without a doubt end many of the jobs and systems of individual economic participation today. I would be interested in supporting such a community though for an agrarian sustain revolution in New York City doesn’t seem to be economically feasible in the way Copper Square Land trust has historically created a means in which to balancing its economic survival with growth and not separation.
Though I agree entirely the idea of converting vacant lots to agricultural centers and employing residents for maintenance I’m concerned with the prioritize notions of agriculture as the preferred tool for economic empowerment.
We saw on the tour from Bill that though many of the communal Gardens are under the administration and governance of the Parks Department, they are in fact the results of historical and continued community engagement, participation, and democracy. Through these parks, I agree that there exists a plethora of economic potential and possibilities but not to fight the system but to grow within it.
Personally, I worry that this plan seems to value the economic independence that an agrarian revolution can offer vs. arguably the real strength of gardens, the strengthening of the neighborhood’s physical and social environment.
Impractical though Weinberg’s overall vision might be, there are ways to pare it down in a way that makes it a little more palatable. Maybe an autonomous zone is too much to aspire to, but community control in the form of an elected community board with voting and enforcement powers might be possible. In fact, this kind of proposal has been made nearly every time the city charter is revised (a process that is happening right now, by the way!) And perhaps we can’t turn back the hands of time and return to Jefferson’s agrarian vision for the United States, but protecting community gardens and perhaps even cultivating them as usable farms is not totally crazy. After all, we do need to reduce our carbon footprints and shorten our supply chains as transportation systems become more precarious with climate change. My sense is that we should keep ideas like Weinberg’s close at hand because we can all agree that the planet is warming and climate change is happening. The way things are now is not the way things will be. Weinberg’s hyper-local focus may be the only kind of option we have one day. And cooperation may be our only hope too!