<underfire> More on the affects of organized abandonment

[brian.holmes at wanadoo.fr]

I am very much in agreement with all the points that Dan makes, except part
of the last one.

The use of the word "blight" as a justification for the assertion of
eminent domain is symptomatic of the whole situation in the US today. When
they say "blight", what that refers to now is any condition of property or
inhabitation that is perceived to lower values in a given area. The result
is that a person has no right to use value, if that keeps anyone else from
realizing profitable exchange value. Translated into pragmatic terms, what
that means is that if the market doesn't like the looks of your house, you
can be kicked out or expropriated. But try and think about the abstract
formulation. Try and think about a condition where one has no right to use
value.

There are tremendous racist crimes being committed in the United States,
specifically, and across the world, in accord with this total priority of
exchange value. But this kind of crime affects everyone - white or black,
Arab, Christian, Hindu, Jew, etc. - who can still be sensitive to the dream
of (that means, the utopia of, and the aspiration to) a better life which
is not their personal property, whose promise is not limited to them alone.
I don't think the problem can or should be entirely racialized. Against the
logic of the ban, and the fact of organized abandonment, the ideal of
equality can still be a guide to real political struggle. Perhaps that is
the single most important thing I know how to say.

best to all, Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .