Library:Tenant Spring/Centralism

Chapter Six: Centralism

Instead of using coalitions, ACTA wants to fight a city-wide, “strategically centralized war of attrition against landlords.” Why?

This follows the revolutionary line. A revolution that eliminates private property is the minimum condition for soberly addressing the housing question for the entire population. But revolution is not something which occurs in a single decisive moment; it is a process. An organization can only make concrete steps toward what it views as the climax of the class struggle according to its own concrete analysis of the concrete situation.

Some working definitions are in order for this chapter. What we mean by ‘tenant organization’ is any group like ACTA: these

organizations attempt to organize tenants specifically and exclusively into unions. What we mean by ‘housing justice organization’ is any group like One Northside or Pilsen Alliance: these organizations might work to improve the material conditions of tenants occasionally but they might also work in defense of the interests of homeowners and they typically also include other broader initiatives around things like education, youth empowerment and violence prevention. What we mean by ‘coalition’ is any group like Lift The Ban or its chief carrier, the Chicago Housing Justice Coalition: These are organizations of organizations, so to speak; they are assemblies of the two types of groups listed above. Coalitions can also include individual politicians, like aldermen.

An organization or a coalition that has as an ultimate objective something shy of the socialist revolution, for example Lift The Ban (LTB), is a reformist project from our perspective as revolutionary socialists. Our intention is not to make a point about the legitimacy of the effort to lift the ban on rent control in and of itself—we are making a point about the disorganization of the movement. Under such conditions of disorganization, the timeless debate between reform and revolution as two commensurable paths which we must choose between is right at home. It is no surprise that these conditions lead organizers to elevate a particular method or even individual tactics to the level of the total struggle. The final aim of LTB is stated in its name. Its objectives are pursued independently of the movement as a whole, and therefore all other organizations which are also strategically independent can do nothing but react according to whether LTB’s plans at any given time contradict or harmonize with theirs. This purely external connection is similar to that kind of anarchy that prevails in the market.

Consequently, activity of individuals in their effort to lift the ban on rent control has no organic existence inside of the movement. Because it is imposed on the revolution by organizers from without, it cannot assume its proper place in the strategy of the revolution. Once again, let this not be misunderstood. This is not a preposterous claim that ACTA is somehow actually in the revolution, while everyone else is not. We do believe we are actually in the revolution, but if we were to flip the perspective, the organizers central to LTB might be saying the same things about themselves that we do (as unlikely as that seems). If so, they might well say the same things about ACTA that we’re saying about them. This is to say that they do not know our plans and cannot plan for the actions we take. Each group simply reacts to the other’s maneuvers as best they can according to the degree to which their objectives align.

Our claim here is simply that the revolution is disorganized to all hell. We can’t properly evaluate the sum total activity of the “housing justice movement” from the perspective of the revolution. The best we can do is evaluate ourselves and make speculations about others. Our point of view about ourselves, of course, is that our activity is revolutionary. We can’t say anything with confidence about others. On top of this disorganization arises the notion of reformism which has a real, distinct existence opposite the revolutionary process. This reform or that reform may support or it may hinder our revolutionary process—it is a dice roll. Whether the contradictions have been heightened or not can only be conclusively analyzed after the fact. And these considerations, ultimately, can be made from our point of view alone. All activity that happens to us, from the outside, can only be evaluated for its impact on us, i.e. the organization we believe is revolutionary. Such is the fate of a city organized like ours.

Let us imagine for a change a situation where the effort to lift the ban on rent control was a strategic consideration of the revolutionary movement in advance of the fact. In this situation, the self-identified movement would weigh the decision to lift the ban on rent control for its totalizing effects: How many organizers are necessary to pursue this? How much money will it cost to pursue? Could our effort be directed better elsewhere? What are the prospects of success? What kind of sacrifices and concessions will we have to make with aldermen and the real estate industry? Will it force our other types of activity to be suppressed or toned down? In the event of a victory, do we anticipate this will leave the working class satisfied and peaceful, or does it bring them to a higher level of organization with a stronger appetite for fighting? Will it provide them with new opportunities to satisfy that appetite?

In other words, reforms as opposed to revolution will remain just that—a hostile dichotomy—unless all tactics under analysis are brought into the unity of the same strategic and practical point of view. This idea is severely misunderstood. The true connection between reforms and revolution does not compare them side by side as equivalent options. Putting them at the same level in this way, like adding tenths to hundredths without a common denominator, leads inevitably into error. Considered dialectically, a given reform may take on a broader strategic significance. But this dialectic between reforms and revolutionary tactics can only be animated when it belongs to a unified revolutionary system. Without this strategic unity, there is no basis to investigate the relation of one tactic with another and therefore no proper basis to speak on either. Without the unifying system, pursuit of reform frequently becomes an end in itself while the opposing rejection of reform remains at the level of dogmatism.

Put more plainly, all efforts to lift the ban on rent control should be taken into consideration by the leadership of one revolutionary tenant movement and pursued (or not pursued) on this basis alone. Tenant Organization A should not have to consider whether or not to “join the coalition” with Housing Justice Organization B, one it has no share of control over, where there are no common principles or systems of accountability. All there can be with a coalition, at best, is an accidental and temporary coincidence of interests between two or more organizations which otherwise do not cooperate.

A coalition therefore appears other than what it actually is. Take another coalition, the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance Coalition (JCEO), as a different example of the disorganization inherent to this manner of organizing.

JCEO’s stated objective is to pass legislation that establishes seven legally valid reasons for which a landlord can end a rental agreement. This effort is being pursued as a response to the current situation in Chicago that allows landlords to evict tenants for any reason, or for no reason at all. At the time of publication, JCEO is made up of over 100 (!) distinct organizations. Evidently, these organizations are in agreement, whatever that might mean, with the stated objectives of the coalition. And by virtue of the sheer number of these member organizations, JCEO appears as an example of strong, quality organization which grounds a compelling and vital objective.

But if JCEO’s objective is so vital and if the effort to achieve it is strongly organized, what is preventing its 25 member organizations from formally merging into one and the same organization and pursuing it with complete ideological unity on the basis of their combined and coordinated material forces? In other words, why a coalition instead of an organization proper?

The reason is because the individual member organizations pursue contradictory objectives outside the coalition and that is where their passions and material power to organize lie. Not only do they act contradictorily toward other member organizations, their actions also contradict the coalition’s own objectives and principles. For example, take one of the JCEO member organizations, Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT). On November 17, 2020, they published a paper called Green Stormwater Infrastructure Impact on Property Values. This article champions certain ecologically-minded technological innovations in home construction for their ability to raise the selling prices of houses.

It seems certain that a positive assessment of rising home prices would conflict with the outlook of the Democratic Socialists of America, another member organization in JCEO. Meanwhile, on the websites of JCEO and a handful of their member organizations, statements like these are abundant: “As of 2018, almost half of all Chicago renters were rent burdened which means they spent more than 30% of their income on rent, yet low-income households represent the largest share of Cook County renter households. The supply of affordable rental units has been dropping at an increased rate in Chicago since 2012.”

So which is it? Do we want expensive houses or cheap houses? According to CHJC, we want them cheap. According to CNT, we want them to be expensive. Coalitionism as a general organizing principle is precisely what allows this nonsense to prevail and, ultimately, it is the working class who suffers because the self-appointed leaders of the different fronts of the war are either unable or unwilling to conceive their objectives as one part of a unified whole and have no obligation to make their principles clear.

We could say here that it is likely unimaginable to the directors of JCEO that raising the value of houses corresponds to a rise in the power of landlords and in turn weakens the tenants’ ability to resist eviction. But this ideological malaise is not what is at issue. What is at issue is that, independently of what the directors of CNT and the other member organizations think, there is obviously no instrument through which they can criticize or influence one another using the criteria of their shared principles and objectives. A coalition can only pass over into organization if it sheds its temporary and incidental character and all members subordinate themselves to a permanent internal unity.

Coalitionism is the opposite of organization, it is disorganization. Another variation of coalitionism which is similarly disorganized occurs when two or more tenant organizations coexist in Chicago but they remain divided for one reason or another. Experience has shown us that typically the reason used to justify these divisions is geography. It’s said that the city is too big and too segregated and this is reflected in diverse objective organizing conditions from one neighborhood to the next. For example, neighborhood X is all two-flat greystone buildings of English-speaking black tenants, while Neighborhood Y is all multifamily buildings with corporate landlords and Mexican tenants.

This attitude, again, is a sign of disorganization. “Geography” and “conditions” are used to mask the fact that what really cements the division of two or more organizations—which indeed might be geographically divided—are their principles and organizational practices. This is not meant to provoke. It’s just the fact. Take a real example: because Chicago Union of Tenants (CUT) is up north and ACTA is out west means that interested onlookers can dismiss our division as one of a “turf war.” This is an embarrassing consequence of our disorganization. There is not a turf war between ACTA and CUT, there is a political battle occurring over leadership in the tenant movement.

ACTA is up to the task of solving the geography riddle. We believe that geography is a problem that must be addressed by our organization. To reach across neighborhood lines and shake hands with the organization over there is not solving the problem, it is avoiding it. It says “Ok, you all take care of that, we’ll take care of this, hopefully it will all work out. Nevermind finding out what one another thinks of the fundamental questions of strategy or the analysis of the situation.” This does nothing but reinforce geographic division. ACTA stays out of Rogers Park not because it is CUT’s “turf” but because we do not have the material forces to organize there. If we did, CUT would not deter us. What would be excellent is if CUT and ACTA could fuse and become the material forces of one another, but again, disorganization currently deters this. Disorganization in this instance materializes as disagreement over the very question at hand: coalition or organization?

The positions around the question can be summarized as follows. On one hand, there is the view that the city should be organized on the basis of geographically and ideologically divided coalitions. This is the apparent view of CUT, Autonomous Tenants Union, Tenants United, Southside Together, i.e. the tenant organizations and housing justice organizations. Needless to say it is also the view of the non-profit coalitionists. It is in so many words, The Chicago Way. This perspective on the question holds that the fragmented state of the movement is actually a strength. There is no need to speculate about whether or not this is accurate. This is the default condition of the movement and it has been for decades. Disorganization is the status quo.

On the other hand, there is the view the the housing movement in this city should be centralized on the basis of one revolutionary tenant organization, i.e. it should be brought into one strategic system. Each and every tactic regarding the war against capitalist landlords must be evaluated on this basis. This is the view of ACTA. Do we stand alone?

The Chicago tenant organization closest in ideology to ACTA is CUT. To their credit, they see the significance of creating tenant unions as a means for the working class to realize the power granted by its economic position within the capitalist system. CUT also contains dedicated and smart organizers, people we call our comrades. They are at least sympathetic toward socialism. But, CUT disagrees with the principle of centralization even internally. They are coalition building, so to speak, in their own organization. What else can you call a horizontalist structure? Is it not an appropriate way to describe a coalition? In CUT, individual members play the role of individual member organizations in coalitions, they operate autonomously except insofar as their interests vaguely coincide on the abstract principle of—in CUT’s case—“tenant organizing.”

It follows from this abstract organizational principle that merely organizing tenant unions at the building level—no matter where or with what kind of relation to the whole—is a sufficient approach to the war on landlords. We disagree.